.■^*^ 


l_^'^{i,.^ 


r^ 


i^: 


4 


The 

rroperty 

IlfflilT 

CiimiTIiM  ^ 

'^ 

nZ'IETY, 

BARTON 

SQUARE,    SALEM. 

DEPOSITED 


•IN     Till!  — 


LIBRARY 


—  OF    THF. — 


ESSEX    INSTITUTE. 


PUBLISHED   BY  DAVID   J.   BURR,  NO.    50,  CORNHLLL,  BOSTON. 


REVIEW 

OF    THE 

UNITARIAN    CONTROVERSY. 

[Extracted  from  the  Pauoplist.] 


A  Letter  to  the  Rev.  Samuel  C.  Thacher,  on  the  asfiersions,  contained  in  a> 
late  number  of  the  Panohlist^  on  the  Ministers  of  Boston  and  the  vicinity. 
By  William  E.  Channing,  minister  of  the  church  of  Chnst  in  Federal 
Street,  Boston.  Third  edi'ion,  nmth  additional  remarks.  Boston:  Wells 
&  Lilly.     1815.   [July.]  pp.36. 

A  Letter  to  the  Rex>.  Vl^illiam  E.  Channing,  on  the  subject  of  his  letter  to  the 
Rev.  Samuel  C.  Thacher,  relating  to  the  rrvieiv  in  the  Panofilist  on  A- 
merican  Unitarianism.  By  Samuel  Worcester,  D.  D.  pastor  of  the 
Tabernacle  Church,  Salem.  Third  edition.  Boston:  S.  T.  Armstrong. 
1815.   [July.]  pp.  36. 

Remarks  on  the  Rev.  Dr.  Worcester's  letter  to  Mr.  Channing;  on  the  "Re- 
view of  American  Unitarianism,"  in  a  late  Panoplist.  By  William  E. 
Channing,  ?ni?iister,is'c.  Second  edition.  Boston:  Wells  8c  Lilly.  1815. 
[August.]  pp.  39. 

Are  you  a  Christian  or  a  Calvinist?  or  do  you  firefr  the  authority  of  Christ 
to  that  of  the  Genevan  Re foiiner?  Both  the  form  and  the  spirit  of  these 
questions  being  suggested  by  the  late  revievj  of  American  UnUurianism  in 
the  Panofilist,  and  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Worcester's  letter  to  Mr.  Channing. 
To  which  are  added  some  strictures  on  both  those  -works.  By  a  Latman, 
Boston:  Wells  &  Lilly.  1815.  [August.]  pp.  72. 

A  Second  Letter  to  the  Rev.  William  E.  Channing,  on  the  subject  of  Unitari- 
anism. By  Samuel  Worcester,  D.  D.  pastor,  is^c.  Second  edition. 
Boston:  S.  T.  Armstrong.  1815.  [Augiist.]  pp.  44. 

Remarks  on  the  Rev.  Dr.  Worcester's  second  letter  to  Mr.  Channing,  onA- 
merican  Unitarianism.  By  William  E.  Channing,  minister,  <Jfc.  Bos- 
ton: Wells  8c  Lilly.  1815.  [October.]  pp.48. 

A  Third  Letter  to  the  Rev.  William  E.  Channing,  on  the  subject  of  American 
Unitarianism.  By  Samuel  iToRCEsrER,  D.  D.  fiastor,  ^c.  Boston:  S« 
T.Armstrong.  1815.  [December.]  pp.80. 

The  controversy,  which  has  been  carried  on  at  Boston  in  the 
course  of  the  last  year,  respectiiij^  modern  Unitarianism,  is  cer- 
tainly one  of  the  most  impvii-tant  tlieological  discussions,  in  which 
our  readers  can  ever  be  called  to  take  an  interest.  It  relates  to  all 
the  essential  articles  of  tlie  Christian  faith;  to  the  object  of  religious 
worship,  the  moral  condition  of  man,  the  penalty  of  the  divine  law, 
the  way  in  which  sinners  are  reconciled  to  God,  the  nature,  char- 
acter and  offices  of  the  Savior,  tl\e  regard  which  is  due  to  him,  the 
evidences  of  piety,  the  authoiity  of  the  Scriptures,  and  the  state  of 
mankind  in  the  world  to  come,  xill  these  topics,  with  an  immense 
"uriety  of  others,  are  involved  in  the  controversy  mow  before  the 
1 


-  Reviev)  of  the  Unitarian  Controversy. 

public.  With  the  best  reason,  therefore,  may  we  solicit  the  atten- 
tion oi'  all,  who  have  at  licart  the  prosperity  of  the  church  and  the^ 
spiritual  welfare  of  themselves  and  their  fellow  men,  to  whatever 
may  be  laid  before  them  on  these  subjects  in  our  pages,  if  written 
with  the  spirit  of  the  Gospel,  and  witli  that  care  and  solemnity 
which  the  momentous  questions  at  issue  rerpiire. 

About  a  }  ear  since,  a  pamphlet  was  published  at  Boston,  which 
professed  to  give  an  authentic  history  of  Unitarianism  in  America. 
This  pamphlet,  as  most  of  our  leaders  know,  was  reviewed  at 
some  length  in  the  Panoplist  for  June  last.  The  review  induced 
Mr.  Channingto  write  his  Letter  to  Mr.  Thacher,  and  occasion- 
ed, more  or  less  directly,  the  publication  of  all  the  pamphlets,  whose 
title-j)ages  are  copied,  at  the  head  of  this  article.  Several  other 
pamphlets  owed  their  existence  to  the  same  causey  but  we  do  not 
iearn,  that  any  importance  has  been  attached  to  them. 

As  many  of  our  present  subscribei's  were  not  subscribers  to  the 
last  volume,  we  propose  to  give  a  brief  recapitulation  of  the  review- 
here  referred  to,  and  then  to  enter  upon  the  consideration  of  the 
publications  before  us.  We  are  persuaded,  indeed,  that  such  a  re- 
•apitulation  will  be  useful  to  all,  who  \^ ish  to  retain  the  prominent 
points  of  the  controversy  distinctly  in  their  minds.  Let  us  turn, 
tiien,  to  the  reN  iew. 

We  began  by  mentioning  the  silent,  secret  ju'ogress  of  a  defec- 
tion from  orthodoxy  i)i  Boston  and  the  vicinity,  in  its  downwai-d 
<  ourse  to  the  lowest  Socinianism,  and  to  the  borders  of  infidelity. 
We  took  notice  of  the  artifice,  which  has  been  practised  by  lati- 
tudinarians,  in  concealing  their  real  opinions,  and  giving  the  pub- 
lic to  understand,  that  they  do  not  differ  materially  from  their  or- 
thodox brethren.  Of  this  artifice  we  gave  an  instance,  which  had 
recently  occurred.  I'hat  our  readers  might  be  aware  of  the  mean- 
ing, affixed  to  the  word  Unitarianism  by  Mr.  Belsham,  the  author 
of  the  history  which  we  were  reviewing,  we  gave  ample  extracts 
from  his  writings,  and  exjjressed  the  substance  of  those  extracts, 
in  our  own  language,  by  way  of  summai'y.  We  examined  the  op- 
position, wl.ich  some  persons  feel,  to  all  religious  controversy;  and 
endeavored  to  show,  that  it  is  often  absolutely  necessary.  Con- 
ceiving that  the  essential  doctrines  of  the  Scriptures  were  covertly 
attacked,  and  that  attempts  were  constantly  made  to  undermine 
tiie  foundations  of  the  Christian's  hope,  we  declared  ourselves  con- 
scientiously bound  to  expose  the  evil,  and  to  resist  it,  to  the  utmost 
of  our  ability.  We  then  gave  an  abridged  account  of  the  rise  and 
progress  of  Unitarianism  in  this  counti-y,  and  of  its  propagation  in 
Harvard  Crollege,  for  the  materials  of  which  we  relied  principally 
on  A?r.  Belsliam*s  authorities.  A  long  letter,  written  by  William 
Wells,  jun.  Ks(j.  we  rj noted  verl)atim  from  the  pamj)]ilet.  We  took 
notice  of  the  ciiastiscment,  which  jNlr.  Belsham  inflicted  upon  the 
Boston  clei'gy,  foj*  their  cowardice,  as  he  evidently  considered  it, 
in  not  avowing  tiieir  religious  opinions.  AVe  described  several 
characteristics  of  Unitarianism.  such  as  the  following:  Its  disciples 
propagate  their  creed  by  negativesj  they  ascribe  their  conversion 


Rsview  of  the  Unitarian  Controversy.  3 

sot  to  the  Bible,  but  to  the  works  of  Priestley,  &c.;  they  systemat- 
ically praise  each  other,  and  detract  from  their  opponents.  We 
commended  Mr.  Belsham's  frankness  in  declaring,  that  Trinitari- 
ans and  Unitarians  could  not  be  fellow- worsliippers  in  the  same 
temple,  and  in  urging  a  separation.  We  urged  tJic  same  thing; 
and  pointed  out  the  temper  and  spirit,  with  which  such  a  separa- 
tion ought  to  be  effected.  We  guarded  against  the  charge  of  hav- 
ing given  an  unfair  representation  of  the  Unitarians  in  this  coun- 
try, and  referred  the  reader  to  most  evident  and  incontrovertible 
proofs.  The  review  was  closed  by  sonic  strictures  on  Mr.  Wolls's 
letter,  which  was  taken  as  a  specimen  of  the  nranner,  in  \\  hich  (he 
liberal  party  treat  the  opinions  and  chai'acters  of  their  antagaiiislp. 

Such  is  the  substance  of  our  review.  We  did  not  suppose  it  would 
be  palatable  to  Unitarians;  but  we  did  most  seriously  intend,  that 
it  should  afford  them  no  just  cause  of  complaint.  That  system  of 
concealment,  which  has  beyond  all  question  been  generally  practis- 
ed by  them,  demanded,  as  we  thought,  to  be  exposed  with  consider- 
able severity.  Whenever  we  stated  facts,  on  any  other  authoritv 
than  that  of  Unitarians  themselves,  we  paid  particular  attention  to 
the  evidence  by  whicli  the  facts  could  be  supported.  We  said  noth- 
ing without  deliberation;  and  we  labored  to  express  ourselves  in 
such  a  manner,  as  to  make  no  impression  whicii  was  not  stricth 
and  literally  ^correct,  according  to  the  most  natural  and  obvious 
meaning  of  our  words.  It  was  with  some  surprise,  tlici'cfore, 
though  without  the  slightest  apprehension  or  alarm,  tliat  we  saw  a 
number  of  most  serious  charges  brought  against  us  by  Mr.  Chan- 
ning;  charges  not  only  serious  in  their  import,  but  couciied  in  the 
most  unmeasured  and  violent  language.  To  tiie  examination  of 
tliese  charges  we  sliall  soon  invite  the  attention  of  our  readers. 

Before  we  proceed  to  tliis  examination,  we  must  be  indulged  in 
saying,  that  controversial  writings  are  often  objected  to,  as  de- 
scending to  personalities,  when  there  is  no  foundation  in  fact  for 
the  objection.  If  a  writer  fallf^  at  once  into  a  violent  passion,  com- 
mits palpable  blunders  where  it  is  easy  to  be  correct,  adopts  the 
grossest  sophistries,  repeats  misrepresentations  width  liavc  been  a 
thousand  times  detected,  and  appeals  to  violent  prejudices  in  ii 
strain  of  ranting  declamation,  it  certainly  may  be  very  proper  that; 
these  faults  should  be  fairly  exposed:  and  it  is  quite  incorrect  to 
stigmatize  such  exposure  as  containing  mere  personalities.  To 
attempt  victory  in  an  argument  by  making  an  opponent  porsojially 
odious,  is  altogether  unjustifiable^  but  to  exhibit  tiie  real  delinquen- 
cies of  tiie  writer^  is  far  from  proving  the  existence  of  enmity  or 
unkindness  towards  tho  man.. 

Shall  we  be  pardoned  in  saying  a  word,  as  to  the  temper  with 
which,  unle^ss  we  deceive  ourselves,  we  ejitcr  upon  this  discussion? 
When  Mr.  Channiag's  letter  first  appeared,  it  was  perused  by  u« 
without  the  slightest  feeling  of  ill-will  toward  the  writer.  We 
knew  that  he  had  done  great  injustice  to  our  language,  our  argu- 
ments, and  our  intentions;  and  that  his  charges  were  in  fact,  and 
could  easily  be  proved  to  be,  perfectly  groundless,     Shoidd  full 


4  Rexieiv  of  the  Unitarian  Controversy. 

credit  be  given  to  his  representations,  vvc  knew  that  we  must  suffer 
extensive!}'  and  severeh;  yet  we  had  no  anxiety  for  the  issue. 
Time  has  shown,  so  far  as  we  are  capable  of  judging  at  present, 
that  we  had  no  cause  for  anxiety.  Our  actual  suffeiings,  in  con- 
sequence of  INli .  Channing's  attack,  have  as  yet  been  so  trifling  as 
to  defy  computation;  while  the  advantages,  which  we  have  derived 
from  it,  are  important,  anti  proii  ise  to  be  durable.  Our  readers 
•will  give  us  credit  for  coolness,  w hen  tliey  consider  that  we  have 
remained  silent  for  nine  months  under  charges  of  ihe  most  serious 
natuie,  preferred  by  a  man  of  some  influence  and  consideration,  and 
tending  to  excite  against  us  no  small  degree  of  popular  animosity; 
charges,  too,  which  we  designed  to  refute,  v\ hen  the  proper  time 
should  ai  rive.     That  time  has  arrived. 

It  may  be  asked,  why  we  think  it  necessary,  after  so  long  a  si- 
lence, to  say  any  tiling  by  way  of  rej)ly  to  Mr.  Channing?  To 
this  question  we  ofter  several  answers.  Some  persons,  (we  hope 
their  number  is  small.)  are  disposed  to  take  silence  for  a  confession 
of  guilt.  Others  are  uisable  to  believe,  till  the  fact  is  clearly  prov- 
ed, that  high  charges  should  be  brought  forward  in  a  solemn  i^nd 
vehement  manner,  unless  there  is  some  foundation  for  them.  But 
our  principal  answer  is,  that  we  think  a  just  exhibition  of  the  man- 
ner, in  w hich  this  controveisy  has  been  conducted,  will  serve  to  il- 
lustrate the  nature  ol  the  conti  oversy  itself.  If  it  shall  clearly  ap- 
pear, that  Mr.  Channing,  with  all  his  reputation  at  stake,  has  fallen 
i)ito  the  grossest  misrei)rescntations,  made  the  most  unwarranted 
statements,  distorted  the  most  innocent  actions  so  as  to  give  them 
an  odious  appearance,  and  wiitten  under  the  influence  of  a  bitter 
temper;  these  things  w  ill  afford  some  presumption,  that  the  ( ause 
in  which  he  is  engaged  is  not  a  good  one.  Iw  this  point  of  view, 
the  manner,  the  style,  and  the  temper,  of  theological  disputants 
are  more  important,  tlian  they  are  apt  to  iniagine. 

After  making  these  observations,  and,  as  we  trust,  feeling  their 
applicability  to  the  case  before  us,  we  shall  certainly  be  very  nuu  h 
to  blame,  if  we  indulge  in  violent  language,  or  make  a  single  un- 
fair representation.  We  request  the  attention  of  our  rcadt rs  to 
this  subject,  with  a  particular  desire  that  they  should  examine, 
with  the  utmost  scrutiny,  wjiat  we  have  to  say.  AYe  shall  b»'  imx- 
cusable,  if,  after  patiently  remaining  silent  so  long,  aiid  professing 
to  be  dispassionate,  we  should  become  justly  chargeable  with  the 
same  faults,  which  we  repiehend  in  others. 

"\A  e  propose  in  the  first  place,  to  examine  the  piincipal  accusa- 
tions preferred  against  us  by  Mr.  Channing;  secondh ,  to  give  a 
brief  analysis  and  review  of  the  discussion  Ivetween  Mr.  Channing 
and  Dr.  Worcester;  and,  tliirdly,  to  close  with  such  niiscellaneous 
reflections,  as  the  state  of  the  controversy  seems  to  require. 

Mr.  Channing's  first  chaige  against  our  Ixeview  is  that  of  false' 
hood.  "Our  conversation,""  says  Mr.  C.  at  the  commencement  of 
liis  letter  to  Mr.  Thacher, — "Our  conversation  turned,  as  you  re- 
collect, on  the  falsehood  of  that  Review;  &c."  p.  3.  Mr.  C.  speaks 
again,  on  the  same  page,  of  "noticing  the  false   and  injurious 


Revieiv  oj  the  Unitarian  Controversy. 

charges  contained  in  this  review."  In  several  subsequent  passages, 
the  charge  of  falsehood  is  strongly  implied.  This  charge  is  after- 
wards qualified  as  follows^  p.  9.  <*'l'hat  he  [the  Reviewer]  intend- 
ed to  deceive,  I  am  unwilling  to  assert;  but  the  most  charitable 
construction,  which  his  conduct  will  admit,  is,  tliat  his  passions 
and  party  spirit  have  criminally  blinded  him,  and  hurried  him  into 
an  act,  which  could  have  been  authorized  only  by  the  strongest 
evidence,  and  the  most  impartial  inquiry."  This  qualification  is 
not  inserted,  however,  in  immediate  connexion  witli  tiie  charges; 
but  the  mind  of  the  reader  is  left,  for  some  time,  to  be  iniiuenced 
by  the  direct  unexplained  charge  of  falsehood,  brought  forward 
with  great  assurance,  and  enforced  by  a  most  vehement  style. 

The  manner  in  which  Mr.  C.  supports  his  charge  is  now  to  be 
examined. 

"The  Panoplist  Review,"  says  Mr.  Channing,  "asserts,  1.  That  the  minis- 
ters of  this  town  and  its  vicinity,  and  the  great  body  of  liberal  Christians,  are 
Unitarians,  in  Mr.  Belshani's  sense  of  the  word." 

"2.  The  Review  asserts,  that  these  ministers  and  liberal  Christians  are 
guilty  of  hypocritical  concealment  of  their  sentiments,  and  behave  in  a  base, 
cowardly  and  hypocritical  manner ."    pp.  4,  5.. 

In  stating  these  assertions,  Mr.  C.  does  not  use  marks  of  quota- 
tion, but  gives,  as  we  are  under  the  necessity  of  presuming,  what 
he  vvisiies  his  readers  to  receive  for  a  correct  account  of  what  we 
had  said.  The  first  assertion  he  repeats  in  the  same  words;  and 
there  can  be  little  doubt,  that,  if  he  had  left  the  matter  here,  every 
reader  would  suppose  him  to  have  copied  our  words,  thougii  the 
mai'ks  of  quotation  had  been  accidentally  omitted.  Tlie  reason  is 
very  obvious.  When  one  man  undertakes  to  repeat  what  anotlier  man 
asserts^  especially  if  the  assertion  is  represented  as  a  heavy  crime, 
most  persons  would  hold  the  accuser  bound  to  give  tlic  very  words 
of  the  assertion,  and  not  quite  different  words,  which  his  angry 
and  agitated  feelings  might  lead  him  to  consider  as  expressing  the 
same  tiling.  Aftci*  Mr.  C.  had  given  his  statement  of  our  asser- 
tion, he  attempts  to  fortify  it  by  three  quotations  from  the  Pano 
plist,  in  the  following  order;  viz. 

"  "We  feel  entirely  warranted  to  say,  that  the  fircdomiriant  religion  oi thet 
liberal  party  is  decidedly  Unitarian,  in  Mr.  Belshani's  sense  of  the  word."  " 
Pan.  p.  267. 

"  "We  shall  feel  ourselves  warranted  hereafter,  to  speak  of  the  fact  as  cer- 
tain, that  Unitarianism,"  meaning  Mr.  Belsham's,  "is  the  predominant  relig- 
ion among  the  ministers  and  churches  of  Boston."  "     p.  254. 

"  "The  liberal  party  mutilate  the  New  Testament,  reject  nearly  all  the 
fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Gospel,  and  degrade  the  Savior  to  the  condition 
of  a  fallible,  peccable,  and  ignorant  man."  "    p.  271. 

It  will  be  observed,  that  in  the  second  of  these  quotations,  Mr. 
C.  has  inserted  the  words,  "meaning  Mr.  Belsham's,"  as  an  innu- 
endo. Against  the  correctness  ef  tliis  imniendo  we  utterly  pro- 
test.   It  is  absolutely  un\Aarranlcd.     The  third  quotation  is  not 


6  Review  of  the  Unitarian  Vontroversij. 

given  with  verbal  accuracy,  as  it  stands  in  the  Panoplist,  where  it 
is  a  scries  of  Cf)nnccted  members  forming  part  of  a  long  sentence^ 
but  we  do  not  complain  of  this  circumstantial  variation  as  having 
imparted  any  new  meaning.  After  protesting  against  the  innuendo, 
we  are  prepared  to  defend  as  strictly  true,  all  that  is  said  in  these 
quotati«)ns,  if  the  passages  are  taken  in  their  proper  connexion,  and 
understood  according  to  the  obvious  import  of  the  language,  in 
which  tliey  are  expressed.  We  have  reason  to  complain, however, 
of  the  manner  in  w  hich  Mr.  C.  has  brought  forward  these  quota- 
tions. 

In  the  first  place,  we  regret  that  Mr.  C.  should  have  been  will- 
ing to  prepossess  his  readers  against  us,  by  stating  in  his  own 
words,  and  in  a  most  obnoxious  form,  the  assertion  which  he  at- 
tempted to  fasten  upon  us.  This  statement  he  made  with  a  tone  of 
vast  assurance,  and  in  such  a  manner  as  to  preclude  all  fuither 
thought  or  examination  on  the  part  of  those,  who  reposed  implicit 
confidence  in  liis  fairness  and  accui'acy,  or  whose  minds,  already 
in  a  state  of  high  exasperation,  were  prepared  to  be  thrown  into 
ungovernable  rage  by  a  small  additional  excitement.  We  need  not 
flay,  that  when  a  reader  is  in  a  violent  paroxysm  of  anger,  he  is 
poorly  rjualihed  to  detect  any  inaccuracy,  either  of  fact,  or  argu- 
ment. A  candid  man  wo^Ild  indeed  perceive,  that  Mr.  C.'s  ex- 
tracts do  not  support  his  allegation;  but  even  such  a  man  might 
suppose,  that  Mr.  C.  had  blundered  upon  the  wrong  passages;  or 
tliat  the  passages  quoted  did  in  fact  convey  a  meaning  more  favora- 
ble to  his  statement,  if  taken  in  their  several  connexions,  than  when 
considered  in  a  detached  form.  Scarcely  any  man  would  easily 
be  led  to  suppose,  that  Mr.  C.  had  gravely  and  repeatedly  charged 
us  witli  making  an  assertion,  which  we  never  made.  Yet  this  i§ 
the  fact. 

Secondly;  we  think  ISIr.  Channingwas  quite  unfair,  in  changing 
the  natural  order  of  the  quotations.  His  first  quotation  stands  in 
the  Panoplist  tiiirteeii  ])ages  after  the  second.  As  tlie  quotation, 
which  he  places  tirst,  contains  the  name  of  Mr.  Belsham,  to  many 
readers  it  would  appear  to  su|)port  the  innuendo,  which  Mr.  C 
ventured  to  jdace  in  his  second  quotation.  Let  the  reader  decide 
for  himself,  whetlicr  this  inversion  of  the  natural  order  of  the  quo- 
tations could  have  been  made  for  any  other  reason,  than  the  one  Just 
stated.  If  he  shall  beoi'o])iiiion  that  it  could  not,  he  will  not  hesi- 
tate long  in  deciding,  whether  such  a  course  of  proceeding  is  justi- 
iiablc. 

Thirdly;  it  was  uncaiulid  in  Mr.  C.  to  give  the  passages,  which 
he  quoted,  as  tlufugh  they  had  been  naked  assertions;  w  hereas  they 
were  gi\  en  in  the  l'anoj)!ist  expressly  as  conclusions,  deduced  Irom 
a  great  variety  of  facts,  which  had  b<*en  distinctly  stated.  The 
proper  way  of  answering  the  Review  was,  to  take  up  its  several 
parts  in  order,  to  re-rxaniinc  the  witnesses,  and  to  form  conclusions 
at  the  end  of  Ciirh  head,  ratlierthan  at  the  beginning.  This  would 
have  beeji  thi^  course  pursued  by  such  men  as  the  Edwardses  and 
^^':tl!erspoon,  in  reference  to  any  work  which  they  might  have 


Review  of  the  Unitarian  Controversy.  7 

thought  it  their  duty  to  answer.  The  last  thing,  whicli  these  illus- 
trious men  would  have  sanctioned  by  their  example,  is,  to  fly  into 
a  violent  passion  at  the  commencement  of  a  discussion,  and  thus  to 
disgust  all  readers,  except  those  who  can  at  once  be  roused  into  a 
similar  passioiu  The  profit,  which  this  latter  class  of  readei-s 
would  derive  from  an  angry  dispute,  can  easily  be  estimated.  We 
do  not  deny,  that  Mr.  C.  professes  to  examine  some  of  the  testimo- 
ny, which  we  had  brought  forward;  but  this  he  does  very  cursorily, 
and  evidently  with  less  reliance  on  any  such  investigation,  than  on 
the  vague  and  heated  declamation  with  which  his  pamphlet  begins 
and  ends. 

Fourthly;  Mr.  C.  brings  together  from  every  part  of  our  Re- 
view detached  passages,  for  the  purpose  of  proving,  that  we  made 
a  general  and  indiscriminate  charge,  not  only  against  the  liberal 
party,  but  against  "the  great  body  of  liberal  Christians."  But  he 
entirely  omits  to  notice  two  passages,  which  we  inserted  with  the 
express  design  of  limiting  and  explaining  what  we  had  said  con- 
cerning the  liberal  party.     The  passages  are  as  follows: 

"The  great  majority  of  those,  whose  influence  goes  to  swell  the  impor- 
tance of  the  liberal  party,  are  not  involved  in  most  of  the  censures,  which 
this  Review  implies,  or  expresses."  p.  266. 

"If  individuals  dislike  Mr.  Belsham  as  a  leader;  if  they  are  not  willing  to 
be  classed  among  his  followers;  let  them  declare  their  own  opinions  openlv. 
But  let  them  not  yield  all  their  countenance  to  Unitarians,  and  yet  com- 
plain if  ranked  in  the  same  class,  by  those  who  have  no  means  of  learning 
their  opinions  except  by  their  conduct."  p.  268. 

Every  person  must  see  at  once,  that  these  passages  are  very  im- 
portant, in  the  inquiry  concerning  our  assoilions,  as  they  were 
stated  by  Mr.  Channing.  Yet  these  passages  are  entirely  over- 
looked: we  will  not  say  designedly;  for  it  is  a  maxim  of  law  and 
of  common  sense,  that  the  suppression  of  truth,  and  the  suggestion 
of  falsehood,  are  equally  criminal:  but  we  think  ourselves  fully  justi- 
fied in  saying,  that  if  Mr.  C.  had  been  as  much  engaged  in  making 
a  fair  statement  of  what  we  did  say,  as  in  exciting  the  passions  of  his 
readers  by  laying*  to  our  charge  things  which  we  did  not  say,  the 
sentences  which  we  have  just  quoted  would  have  been  candidly  ci- 
ted and  considered  by  him. 

We  have  just  intimated,  that  Mr.  C.  laid  to  our  charge  things 
which  we  did  not  say.  This  is  easily  shown.  "The  Panoplist  Re- 
view asserts,"  says  Mr.  C.  "that  the  jninistci-s  of  this  town  and 
its  vicinity,  and  the  great  body  of  liberal  Christians,  are  Unitari- 
ans in  Mr.  Belsham's  sense  of  the  word."  This  assertion,  which 
we  are  accused  of  having  made,  consists  of  two  parts.  We  will 
consider  tliem  in  their  order. 

First,  we  are  charged  with  having  asserted,  <that  the  ministers 
of  Boston  and  its  vicinity  are  Unitarians  in  Mr.  Belsham's  sense 
i)f  the  woid.'  The  only  passages  which  Mr.  C.  quotes,  as  proving 
that  we  made  this  assertion,  are  those  to  which  we  have  already 
called  the  attention  of  our  readers.  Nothing  is  said,  in  either  of 
these  passages,  of  the  ministers  in  the  vicinity  of  Boston^  nor  is 


5  Review  of'  the  Unitarian  Controversy, 

any  thing  said  concerning  these  ministers  generally,  in  any  part  of 
tlie  Review.  Now,  as  the  ministers  in  the  vicinity  of  Boston  are 
much  more  numerous,  than  the  ministers  in  Boston  itself,  the  great- 
er part  of  Mr.  Ciianning's  allegation  falls  at  once  to  the  ground. 
Among  the  ministers  in  the  vicinity  of  Boston,  a  large  proportion 
are  decidedly  ortliodox.  We  cei'tainly  never  thought  of  classing 
these  men  \\  ith  any  of  tlie  sorts  of  Unitarians,  \\  hom  Mr.  Channing 
describes;  nor  did  we  ever  thus  class  them.  Nor  did  we  say,  in 
cither  of  the  passages  quoted,  by  Mr.  Channing,  or  in  any  other 
passage,  that  the  ministers  of  Boston  were  Unitarians,  in  Mr. 
Belsham's  sense  of  the  word:  nor  did  we  say  that  the  ministers  of 
Boston  generally  were  Unitarians  in  any  sense  of  the  word.  Thus 
it  appears,  tiiat  not  a  single  clause  of  this  part  of  Mr.  Channiiig's 
allegation  can  be  suppoited  by  him.  Let  us  now  turn  to  the  other 
part. 

Secondly,  we  are  charged  by  Mi*.  Channing  with  having  assert- 
ed, "that  the  great  body  of  liberal  Christians  are  Unitarians,  in 
Mr.  Belsliam's  sense  of  tlie  woi-d."  It  might  be  sufficient  to  say, 
at  once,  that  this  charge  is  totally  unfounded.  We  never  mention- 
ed *»the  great  body  of  liberal  Christians,"  in  the  whole  course  of 
the  Review.  We  very  much  question  whether  we  ever  used  the 
phrase  "liberal  Christians,"  in  any  place,  or  on  any  occasion  what- 
ever. It  is  a  phrase,  which  we  can  by  no  means  consent  to  apply 
to  such  men  as  Mr.  Belsliam  and  his  friends  in  Great  Britain,  or 
to  the  persons  who  constitute  tlie  liberal  party  in  this  country.  The 
l)hrase  is  very  well  in  itself;  but  they,  who  should  be  forward  to 
claim  it,  as  descriptive  of  their  own  character,  might  very  probably 
be  least  deserving  of  such  a  distinction.  By  the  words  used  by 
Mr.  Channing,  viz.  "the  great  body  of  liberal  Christians,"  we 
should  suppose  all  those  persons  to  be  meant,  in  every  part  of  the 
world,  who  profess  to  be  Christians,  and  claim  the  epithet  liberal. 
Concerning  such  a  general,  undefined,  and  vai'ious  class  of  pro- 
fessed Christians,  scattered  tliroughout  the  world,  we  never 
thought  of  making  any  assertion.  We  spoke  indeed  of  the  liberal 
party;  but  tliis  is  quite  a  different  thing.  The  phrase,  liberal  party, 
we  have  used,  occasionally,  for  the  want  of  a  better.  We  have 
thouglit  it  as  little  offensive,  as  any  other  phrase,  which  could  be  in- 
vented to  designate  the  latitudinarians  in  our  country,  who  deny 
and  oppose  those  doctrines  of  the  Bible,  which  have  been  usually 
railed  the  doctrines  of  the  Reformation;  and  who,  by  cooj)erating 
to  decry  these  doctrines,  and  tlie  doctrines  of  the  Trinity  and  the 
Divinity  of  Christ,  have  formed  themselves  into  a  religious  party. 
Tliongh  we  repeatedly  spoke  of  the  liberal  party,  we  said  nothing 
M' the 'igrcat  bathf  of  that  party;  much  less  did  we  say,  that  the 
great  body  of  that  party  were  Unitarians,  in  Mr.  Belsham's  sense 
of  the  word.  Should  we  permit  Mr.  Channing  to  amend  his  charge, 
by  inserting  liberal  party  instead  of  liberal  Christians,  a  favor  which 
v.e  arc  not  under  the  smallest  obligation  to  grant,  still  he  could  not 
substantiate  what  he  has  said.  It  is  remarkable,  that  the  only  pas- 
a.age  of  the  Review,  which  contains  a  description  in  any  degree  re  - 


Heviexv  of  the  Unitarian  Controversy.  9 

sembling  the  phrase  in  question,  viz.  **the  great  body  of  the  liberal 
party,"  implicitly  disclaims  the  general,  sweeping  assertion,  which 
Mr.  C  charges  us  with  iiaving  made.  "The  great  majority  of 
those,^'  we  say,  "whose  influence  goes  to  swell  tlie  imporiaiice  of 
the  liberal  party,  are  not  involved  in  most  of  the  censures,  which 
this  review  implies,  or  expresses." 

We  have  ehus  shewn,  tiiat  we  never  made  the  asseilions,  which 
Mr.  C.  has  laid  to  our  charge.  Let  the  reader  here  inquire,  what 
sort  of  a  controversial  writer  he  must  be,  who  brings  forward  his 
principal  allegation  in  such  a  manner,  as  that  not  a  single  clause 
of  it  can  be  supported^  and  this,  too,  in  a  case  where  it  was  so  per- 
fectly easy  to  be  accurate,  and  where  all  tlie  errors,  into  wliich  he 
has  fallen,  are  the  result  of  exaggeration. 

We  now  proceed  to  state  what  we  did  assert,  and  to  justify  our 
assertions.  It  is  necessary,  in  the  first  place,  to  assertain  in  what 
sense  w;'  used  the  word  Unitarianism,  generally,  throughout  the  Re- 
view. Our  readers  are  doubtless  aware,  that  the  word  Unitarian 
is  claimed  by  all  who  refuse  to  believe  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Trini- 
ty. As  there  have  been  a  great  variety  of  sects,  uniting  in  tlie  re- 
jection of  the  Trinity,  though  disagreeing  on  many  other  points,  it 
seems  desirable  to  know,  at  the  commencement  of  any  inquiry  con- 
cerning Unitarianism,  in  what  sense  that  word  is  used  by  tlie  wri- 
ters or  parties  in  question.  We  were  about  reviewing  a  history  of 
American  Unitarianism.  The  reader  would  naturally  wish  to  know 
what  sort  of  Unitananism  the  historian  professed  to  be  writing  about. 
We  endeavored  to  satisfy  this  natural  curiosity,by  stating  what  Mr. 
Belsham  wished  his  readers  to  understand,  w  hen  he  used  the  word 
Unitarianism.  In  doing  this,  we  conducted  the  matter  with  the 
most  perfect  upriglitness,  not  even  suspecting  it  to  be  possible,  that 
our  representations  could  be  either  blamed  or  contradicted.  We 
made  large  extracts  from  Mr.  Belsham's  writings,  not  for  the  pur- 
pose of  insinuatiiig  that  the  liberal  party  in  this  country  were  re- 
sponsible for  these  writings,  but  that  our  readers  might  have  some 
just  view  of  the  opinions  held  by  the  historian  of  Unitarianism  in 
America.  This  we  expressed  to  be  our  design  in  making  the  ex- 
tracts; and  that  this  was  a  proper,  fair,  and  laudable  design  we 
have  no  hesitation  in  affirming.  After  closing  tlie  extracts  we  say, 
«Such  is  the  Unitarianism  winch  Mr.  Belsham  wishes  to  propagate, 
and  of  which  he  professes  to  write  the  history;  so  far,  at  least,  as 
relates  to  its  progress  in  this  country.  Of  the  existence  of  such 
Unitarianism,  in  the  metropolis  of  New-England,  our  readers  have 
generally  been  well  pei'suaded;  ^c."  p.  247.  The  representation 
here  made  is  strictly  accurate.  Mr.  Belsham  \a  as  writing  the  his- 
tory of  the  lowest  Socinianism,  and  not  of  any  higher  sort  of  Uni- 
tarianism; and  that  the  lowest  kind  of  Socinianism  has  existed  in 
Bos,ton,  for  some  time  past,  is  undeniable. 

Whenever  we  used  the  word  Unitarianism  without  restriction, 
we  left  it  to  be  understood  in  its  large  and  indefinite  sense.     This 
is  very  manifest  from  the  fact,  that  in  the  sentence  just  quoted,  and 
in  another  to  be  considered  hereafter,  we  ex])ress!y  rostnctcd  ih'e . 
'3 


1&  Review  of  the  Unitariaii  Controvei^sy. 

term  to  the  religious  system  of  >Ir.  Belsham;  whereas,  in  the  great 
majority  of  instances,  we  left  it  entirely  unrestricted.  Thus,  when 
we  enumerate  several  important  doctrines  of  the  Scriptures,  p.  249, 
we  say,  they  «thcy  are  points,  in  which  we  differ  essentially  from 
Unitarians."  Now  it  is  beyond  all  question  the  fact,  that  when 
the  points  tiiere  enumerated  come  to  be  explained,  Trinitarians 
differ,  in  respect  to  them,  from  Unitarians  of  every  class.  When  we 
said,  tliat  *we  should  feel  ourselves  warranted  thereafter  to  speak  of 
the  fact  as  certain,  that  Uiiitai'ianism  is  the  predominant  religion 
amon)^  the  ministers  and  cliiirches  of  Boston,'  we  left  the  reader 
to  understand  the  word  Uiiitarianism,  precisely  as  he  should  find 
the  evidence  before  him  would  authorize  him  to  understand  it.  We 
certainly  did  not  rcstric  t  tlie  woi'd  to  the.  system  of  Mr^  Belsham, 
unless  Mr.  Wells  had  tiuis  restricted  it.  Whetlier  he  had  thus  re- 
stricted it,  oi'  Tiot^  the  reader  coirid  judge.  Mr.  Channing  is  very 
willing  to  admit,  that  3Ir.  Wells  used  the  word  Unitarianism  in  its 
large  and  indefinite  sense;  and  yet  v.'hen  v/e  n.=5e  the  same  word, 
witliout  restriction  or  explanation,  immediately  after  quoting  Mr. 
Wells's  letter;  and  declare  ourselves  warranted  to  use  it,  in  conse- 
quence of  the  testimony  contained  in  tliat  letter;  Mr.  C.  will  have 
it,  that  wc  mea)it  something  essentially  different  from  any  thing 
which  was  intended  by  Mr.  Wells.  We  doubt  wliether  an  entii'e 
"want  of  candor  was  ever  more  strikingly  evident.  Will  it  be  saidj> 
Ihat  Mr.  Belsham  uses  the  word  Unitarianism  in  a  restricted  sense, 
as  descriptive  of  the  lowest  Sociniauism;  that  Mr.  Wells,  being  a 
disciple  of  Dr.  Priestley,  agrees  substantially  with  Mr.  Belsham  in 
religious  doctrine;  tl'at  in  writing  a  private  confidential  letter  to 
Mr,,  Belsham,  it  niight  naturally  be  supposed  that  Mr.  Wells  would 
use  language  tvhich  his  correspondent  would  he  able  to  understand; 
and  that  the  inference  would  naturally  be.  that  Mr,  Wells  used  the 
Word  in  a  restricted  sense?  If  such  should  be  the  inference,  wc, 
surely,  are  not  to  blame.  Mr.  Wells  did  write  the  letter  which  we 
quoted*  He  wrote  it  to  Mr.  Belsham:  and  he  ought  to  have  know  n 
in  what  manner  Mr.  B.  would  natin-ally  understand  him.  Jn  the 
letter  of  Mr*  Wells  to  the  Editor  of  tlie  Panoplistj  which  was  in- 
serted in  the  number  for  July  last,  p.  310,  he  eX})lains  his  meaning 
as  follows: 

"I  mii;lit  net  find  it  easy,  and  I  do  not  think  it  at  all  necessary,  to  define 
precisely  tlic  sense  in  which  I  use  the  very  general  terms  Uniraricm  and  Uiii- 
tariajtisni,  but  it  would  be  very  absurd  to  undei'stand  nie  as  afiirining,  thai 
all  the  gentlemen,  of  whom  I  speak,  are  Unitari  ms  in  precisely  the  same 
bcnse  with  Mr.  B.  A  Christian,  not  a  believer  in  the  Trinity,  I  ha\e  been  in 
tlie  lia!)it  of  denoiriinating  an  Unitarian.  Mr.  B.  contends  for  a  more  limit- 
ed sense.  I  did  not  advei  t  to  this,  and  at  that  time,  1  believe,  did  not  know 
it.  The  sense  in  v.hich  1  use  the  term  may  serve  to  explain  what  is  said  in 
my  letter,  of  "Unitarianism  consisting  rather  in  tiot  believing,"  upon  which 
the  reviewer  lays  s'uch  stress." 

If,  as  Mr.  Wells  says,  it  would  be  nery  absui'd  to  understand 
him  as  affirming,  that  all  the  gentlemen  of  whom  he  spoke  are  Uni- 
tarians in  precisely  the  same  sense  witli  Mr.  Belsham,'  is  it  less 


Review  of  the  Unitarian  Controversy.  l|t 

absurd  to  understand  us  as  affirming  all  this,  when  we  take  our 
words  from  Mr.  Wells,  and  use  them  expressl^y^  on  his  authority? 
We  have  not  the  slightest  reluctance  to  adniit  Mr.  Wells's  explan- 
ation of  his  meaning,  though  we  ti»iiik  his  letter  contains  some 
tilings,  wluch  seem  to  militate  against  it.  For  example;  "Unitari- 
anism,"  sa}s  he,  "consists  rather  in  not  heliex ing."  Now  this  is 
exactly  descriptive  of  the  Unitarianism  of  Dr,  I'ricstley  and  Mr^ 
Belsliam,  which  is  little  short  of  downright  inftdditv;  but  it  by  no 
means  answers  to  the  system  taught  by  Uie  author  of  Bible  JNews, 
wiiich  requires  more  faith,  not  to  say  credulity,  and  is  more  com- 
pletely enveloped  in  mystery,  than  any  otiier  system  which  can  be 
hamed,  ;Mr.  Wells  says,  that  *he  did  not  advert  to  the  fact,  tiiat 
Mr.  B.  contends  for  a  more  limited  sense  of  tlie  word  Uuitarian,* 
and  'lie  believes  he  did  not  then  know  it.*  For  a  friend  and  cor- 
respondent of  Mr.  B.  to  confess  himself  ignorant,  or  unmindful,  of 
the  meaning  which  this  heresiarch  affixes  to  a  word,  which  he  assumes 
as  the  distinguishing  badge  of  his  sect,  is  rather  siugular,  and  could 
hardly  be  expected.  Mr.  Belsiiara  will  receive  Mr.  Wells's  ex- 
planation as  but  a  poor  compliment.  But  whatever  may  have  been 
Mr.  W.'s  knowledge  on  the  subject,  it  is  unquestionably  true,  that 
mode,  n  Socinians  have  claimed  the  word  Unitarian  as  belonging 
(exclusively  to  those,  who  believe  in  the  simple  humanity  of  Christ. 
In  Evans's  Sketch  of  Religious  Denoniinations,  which  was  repub- 
lished in  this  country  in  1807,  we  find  the  following  passage.  *'But 
the  Socinians  have  appropriated  to  themselves  the  appellation  of 
Unitarians;  and  by  tills  name  they  are  now  more  generally  distin- 
guished. I'hough  to  this  appellation  tkey  have  no  exclusive  claim, 
yet  it  is  somew  hat  more  correctly  descriptive  of  tiieir  religious  te- 
nets than  that  of  Socinians,  since  they  renounce  njany  of  the  opin- 
ions of  Socinus."  p.  52.  W^e  never  said,  be  it  remembered,  that 
Mr.  Wells  used  the  word  Unitarian  in  the  sense  given  to  it  by  Mr, 
Belsham,  his  correspondent;  i,  e,  in  the  sense  given  to  it  by  the 
sect,  to  which  Mr.  Wells  himself  belongs.  Whether  we  thought 
so,  or  not,  is  immaterial;  but  we  submit  it  to  our  readers,  whethei* 
a  man  might  not  have  said  and  thought  so,  without  any  impeach- 
ment of  his  understanding  or  his  iioneaty. 

In  short,  Mr^  Wells  says,  «Most  of  our  Boston  Clergy  and  re« 
spectable  laymen  (of  whom  we  have  many  enlightened  theologians) 
are  Unitarian."  Taking  the  words  from  iiis  mouth,  a-.id  relying 
expressly  on  his  authority,  we  say,  <»Ujiitarianism  is  the  predomi- 
nant  religion  among  the  ministers  and  churches  of  Boston.*'  If 
Mr.  W^ells  spoke  the  truth,  we  merely  repeated  it.  If  it  should 
hereafter  be  proved,  that  Mr.  Wells  was  mistaken,  (which  will  not 
be  proved,)  still  we  could  nexer  be  condemned  for  relying  on  his 
testimony.  If  Mr,  AVelJs  is  permitted  to  explain  what  he  meant 
by  the  word  Unitarianism,  it  evinces  a  pitiable  want  of  fairness  to 
refuse  us  the  benefit  of  his  explanation.  If  it  is  absurd  to  suppose, 
that  he  meant  any  thing  other  than  Unitarianism  in  a  large  and  in- 
ilciinite  sense,  it  is  perfectly  clear  that  ve  asserted  nothing  more^ 
tlian  that  ynitarianisin^  in  the  same  large  aiul  indefinite  sense,  is 


1~  Jieview  of  the  Unitarian  Cotitroversy. 

the  predominant  religion  among  the  minister  and  churches  of  Bos- 
ton. That  we  were  warranted  to  make  tliis  assertion,  neither  Mr, 
Channing",  nor  any  other  member  of  the  liberal  party,  will  hesitate 
to  ackno\\  ledge.  Mr.  C.  has  stated  his  own  views  on  this  subject, 
as  follows: 

''But  I  have  always  abstained  most  scrupulously  from  every  expression, 
which  could  be  c<,nstrued  into  an  acknowledgement  of  the  Trinity.  My  wor- 
shi,  and  sentiments  have  been  Unitarian,  in  the  proper  sense  of  that  word." 
Letter,  p.  13. 

''As  to  my  brethren  in  general,  never  have  I  imagined  for  a  moment,  from 
their  preaching  or  conversaiion,  that  they  had  the  least  desire  to  be  consider- 
ed as  Trinitarians;  nor  have  I  ever  heard  from  them  any  \'ievvs  of  God,  or 
ot  Jesus  Christ,  but  Unitarian,  in  the  proper  meaning  of  that  word."  ib. 

We  hope  Mr.  C.  will  not  charge  us  with  falsehood  for  concludijig, 
at  the  close  of  these  extracts,  as  we  concluded,  at  tiie  close  of  Mr. 
Wells's  testimony,  that  "Unitarianisni  is  the  predominant  religion 
among  the  ministers  and  churches  of  Boston." 

We  now  proceed  to  the  consideration  of  the  other  principal  pas- 
sage, which  is  relied  on  to  convict  us  of  falsehood.  It  occurs  thir- 
teen pages  after  the  one,  which  we  have  just  disposed  of,  and  is  ex- 
pressed as  follows:  "We  feel  entirely  warranted  to  say,  that  ihe  pre- 
dominant religion  of  the  liberal  party  is  decidedly  Unitarian,  in 
Mr.  Belsham's  sense  of  the  word."  We  made  this  declaration  as 
a  conclusion,  deduced  from  a  great  variety  of  facts,  which  weie 
particularly  stated.  Whether  the  conclusion  was  warranted  by 
the  facts,  or  not,  is  a  question,  which  we  are  vci'y  willing  our  read- 
ers should  settle  for  themselves.  We  designedly  restricted  the 
word  Unitaiian;  a  proof,  as  we  have  already  intimated,  that  when 
we  did  not  thus  restrict  it,  we  supposed  it  Mould  be  interpreted  with 
moi-e  latitude.  AVe  selected  the  words  predominant  religion  with 
great  care,  as  expressing  the  precise  meaning  which  we  wanted  to 
communicate,  and  as  giving,  by  a  single  phrase,  the  exact  truth 
\\'ithout  any  mixture  of  error.  Tite  sentence  was  repeatedly  read 
to  a  friend  for  consultation  and  advice;  and  the  result  was,  that, 
in  our  opinion,  the  description  was  perfectly  accurate. 

Writeis  ai-e  apt  to  be  fond  of  their  own  language.  They  some- 
times see,  i)i  their  own  phrases,  a  propriety  which  theii-  readers 
will  not  be  able  to  descry.  It  is  very  possible  that  we  weie  not  for- 
tunate, in  the  selection  of  the  obnoxioiis  phrase.  Had  we  foreseen, 
that  it  would  he  made  the  ground  of  heavy  accusations,  we  should 
ha\  e  explained  the  sentence,  in  w  hich  it  occurs,  as  follows.  By 
saying,  that  the  predominant  religion  of  the  liberal  party  is  Unita- 
rian, in  Mr.  Belsham's  sense  of  the  word,  we  intend,  that  those 
members  of  the  liberal  party,  who  believe  in  the  simple  humanity 
of  Christ,  and  agree  substantially  with  Dr.  Priestle}  and  Mr.  Bel- 
sham  in  religious  opinions,  actually  possess  a  predominanl  ivjiiience 
in  the  party  to  w  hich  they  belong.  Me  intend,  that  they  possess  a 
greater  share  of  learning,  of  talent,  of  sectarian  activity,  and  of 
influence  in  society,  than  all  other  classes  of  Unitarians  put  ti)- 


Rev-iew  of  the  UnitarUin  Co7it>'oversy.  IS 

gcther.  Possessing  these  qualities,  their  system  of  religion  may, 
witliout  inipropriety,  be  called  the  prcdcmiinant  religion  of  the  lib- 
eral party.  Thus  should  we  have  explained,  had  we  been  aware 
that  our  language  ^rould  need  an  explanation. 

It  will  be  observed,  that  we  said  nothing  about  amajurihj  ofnuvi- 
be7-s.  This  we  could  not  do;  for  we  had  not  the  requisite  informa- 
tion. The  liberal  party  we  knew  to  be  divided  into  majiy  classes. 
The  number  of  persons  belonging  to  each  class  it  would  he  impossi- 
ble for  any  man  to  state  with  accui-acy.  But  theinfluence  continu- 
ally exerted  was  much  less  diflicult  to  he  estimated.  On  tlie  ques- 
tion of  numbers,  Mr.  C.  represents  himself  and  Mi'.  Tliacher  as 
agreeing,  'that  a  majority  of  their  bi'ethren  believe,  that  Jesus 
Clirist  is  more  than  man,  &c.'  This  might  be  true  consistently 
with  our  declaration.  Whether  it  be  so,  or  not,  wc  have  no  ade- 
quate means  of  foi-ming  an  opinion.  Mr.  C.  afterwai'ds  gives  it  as 
his  estimate,  that  those  «who  believe  the  simple  humanity  of  Jesus 
Christ,  form  a  small  proportion  of  the  great  body  of  Uiiitariaus,  in 
this  part  of  the  country.'  We  have  no  confidence  at  all  in  the  acr 
/curacy  of  tliis  estimate.  We  do  not  believe  that  Di'.  Freeman,  or 
the  Layman,  will  admit  it  to  be  accurate.  Though  we  do  not  i)ro- 
fess  ourselves  able  to  form  an  estimate  of  the  numbers,  belonging  to 
the  different  sub-divisions  of  the  liberal  party,  yet  we  arc  much 
mistaken  if  the  Socinians,  added  to  those  who  iiave  no  fixed  (q)in- 
ions  concerning  the  character  of  our  Savior,  would  not  greatly  out- 
number all  other  classes  of  Unitarians  in  our  country.  liut  it  is 
notpi'obable  that  the  question  of  numl)ers  will  ever  be  settled  in  this 
world;  nor  is  it  material  that  it  should  be. 

We  now  turn,  for  a  few  moments,  to  tlic  inquiry  whether  the  So- 
cinians had,  or  had  not,  a  predominant  influence  in  the  liberal  par- 
ty, at  the  time  the  Review  was  written.  We  considered  Ilarvaj-d 
College  as  under  the  control  of  men,  who  publislied  the  Genej^al 
Repository,  and  praised  the  Improved  Version.  If  so,  it  is  unques- 
tionably under  the  control  of  Socinians.  The  General  Repository 
was  published  by  gentlemen  holding  offices  of  instruction  and  gov- 
ernment in  the  College.  It  is  notorious  that  one  of  these  gentle- 
men was  the  Editor," and  that  others  were  contributors.  A  printed 
circidar  letter  was  issued,  stating  the  extraordinary  qualifications 
of  this  Editor,  and  earnestly  soliciting  subscriptions  to  the  work: 
and  this  circidar  was  signed  by  a  most  active  member  of  tlie  coi-po- 
ration  of  the  College,  (the  same  who  wrote  a  wojulerfully  temperate 
pamphlet,  which  we  shall  notice  presently.)  and  by  tv.o  persons  of 
distinction  in  Boston.  The  President  of  the  College  will  not  tleny, 
that  he  was  friendly  to  the  General  Rei)ositor}'.  That  work  was 
doubtless  intended  to  be  the  great  instrument  of  propagating  Uni- 
tarianism  in  this  country;  and  the  Unitarianisin,  which  it  hihored 
to  propagate,  was  evidently  Socinianism.  Mr.  Channing  dors  not 
deny  this;  but  simply  declares,  that  'he  has  heard  some  of  its  sen- 
timents disapproved  by  the  majority  of  those  with  wln>m  he  has 
conversed.'     Ee  it  so.     This  may  only  ju'ove,  that  Mr,  C.  cf>nvei"S- 


J*  Review  of  the  (Jnilatian  Controversy, 

ed  more,  on  tlie  subject  of  the  General  Repository,  with  those  Uni^ 
tarians  who  agiee  with  him  in  sentiment,  than  with  others.  AU 
this  is  \eyy  natural.  In  regaid  to  the  Monthly  Antholo.ejy,  Mr» 
<C,  says  'he  has  read  as  little  of  that  work  as  of  most  periodical 
pnblications;'  hut  that  Mr.  Thacher  has  informed  him,  *tliat  the 
doctrine  of  the  simple  humanity  of  Christ  is  not  once  asserted  in 
it.'  Very  likely.  It  has  not  been  the  habit  of  Unitarians  to  avow 
all  their  opinions  clearly,  not  even  in  tlieir  anonymous  writings. 
But  there  are  arti(  les  in  the  Anthology,  which  any  person  of  judg. 
mcnt  must  pronounce  to  iiave  been  written  by  Sociiiians.  'J'he  in- 
decent leviiy  with  which  the  most  sacred  doctrines  are  rixliculed, 
and  the  contemptuous  manner  in  which  the  orthodox  are  treated, 
declare  jdainly  enough  the  school,  in  which  the  writers  learned  their 
logic  and  their  manners. 

it  is  worthy  (if  remark,  tliat  Mr.  Channing  seems  disposed  to 
pay  a  very  sliglit  regard  to  the  Anthology  and  the  Repository^  and 
to  pass  over  them,  as  thougli  they  had  been  the  productions  of  no- 
body, and  nobody  was  responsible  for  them.  SVe  liave  observed 
the  same  dis])osition  in  other  members  of  the  liberal  party.  Is  it 
then  a  fact,  that  either  of  these  works  had  a  dubious  and  obscure 
origin;  and  that  they  are  to  he  considered  as  mere  foundlings,  dis- 
owned and  deserted  by  all?  Of  the  direction,  under  which  the  Re- 
pository was  issued,  we  iiave  already  spoken.  If  ever  a  party  was 
resixmsible  for  a  publication  issued  under  its  auspices,  continued  by 
its  jiati-onage,  conducted  by  its  most  distinguished  members,  and 
nniforndy  subservient  to  its  cause,  the  liberal  party  in  Boston  and 
the  vi(  inity  are  responsible  for  both  the  works  in  question.  The 
Anthology  was  edited  by  those  clergymen  and  laymen  of  the  liber- 
al party,  who  have  been  most  praised  by  each  other,  and  by  the 
parly  generally,  for  their  learning,  their  talents,  their  catindicism, 
and  many  other  excellent  qualities.  ^Ir.  Belsham,  on  tiie  other 
side  of  the  Atlaiitic,  is  loud  in  his  praises  of  that  work,  and  of  the 
Repository.  Yet  Mr.  C.  intiniates,  that  he  has  read  little  of  the 
Anth(d(igy.  Tiiis  is  but  a  sorry  tale  to  tejl  his  brethren,  who 
doubtless  supposed,  that  none  but  bigots  could  shut  their  eyes 
against  thp  light,  w  hich  shone  from  the  pages  of  their  favorite  work. 
But  whether  Mr.  C.  read  tlie  Anthology  little  or  much,  his  breth- 
ren were  ileeply  engagrd  in  pnAiding  materials  for  it.  Tliey  met 
veekly  to  confer  respecting  it,  and  to  conduct  its  alfairs:  unci  they 
Avrote  all  the  promineitt  articles  w])icli  it  contained.  Tlu'ir  foster- 
ing care  was  contiinied,  till,  as  Ur.  Morse  has  well  observed,  «it 
snidv  undei^the  weight  of  its  own  sins;''  and,  after  a  moderate  in- 
terval, the  Repository  ai-ose  ;is  its  successor,  and  was  ])ublished  by 
the  Siune  class  oi'  men.  Me  must  be  permitted,  therefore,  to  assigii 
tlieir  ])j'oper  impoitijice  to  tjie  ailiries  which  appeared  in  both 
these  works. 

To  ( oncliule  wliat  we  have  to  say  on  this  topic,  there  can  be  no 
doubt  tluit  the  R<>pository  was  the  favorite  child  of  those,  who  had  a 
predcnninant  iniliience  in  giving  thecdogical  instruction  at  Harvard 
College.     The  U'.'posil(«ry  was  not  only  Socinian  in  H^  iuliucnx^': 


hev'kw  of  the  Unitarian  Controversy  i  it 

generally,  but  seemed  to  take  particular  pleasure  in  bestowing  cm- 
phatical  praise  upon  the  Impi-oved  Version  uf  the  New  Testament; 
a  sectarian  work,  which  was  published  by  Mi*.  Belsham  and  his 
friends.  What  stronger  evidence  can  be  required  of  us,  that  tlie 
College  was  under  the  influence  of  Unitarians,  who  harmonize  with 
Mr.  Belsham?  It  may  be  added,  that  the  corporation  olf  Harvard 
College  consists  of  but  six  members  beside  the  President;  that  two 
of  these  gentlemen  belong  to  Dr.  Freeman's  society,  and  that  one 
of  the  two  Is  considered  as  decidedly  the  must  active  member  of  the 
corporation. 

it  is  pi'oper  to  observe,  that  in  judging  of  the  religious  charactei* 
of  the  College,  we  do  not  refer  to  those  instructors,  whose  province 
has  ho  particular  connexion  with  theology.  What  the  religious 
opinions  of  these  gentlemen  are,  the  public,  we  believe,  have  no 
means  of  determining. 

If  the  College  is  Unitai'ian  in  Mr.  Belsham's  sense  of  the  word, 
it  follows  almost  of  course,  that  the  predominant  religion  of  the  lib- 
eral party  is  this  kind  of  Unitarianism.  The  College  is  intended 
to  exert,  and  does  actually  exert,  a  prodigious  influence.  The  re- 
ligion which  is  prevalent  there  will  be  tlie  prevalent  religion  of  the 
party. 

Besides,  it  is  to  be  remembered,  that  those  gentlemen,  who  are 
known  to  be  Socinians,  and  who  possess  great  influence  jiot  only  in 
reference  to  the  College,  but  in  reference  to  other  important  sub- 
jects, receive  the  unqualified  fiupport  of  the  whole  liberal  party. 
This  is  a  very  material  consideration*  Mi-.  C.  will  not  pietend, 
for  a  moment,  that  a  gentleman's  agieeing  precisely  with  Mr.  Bel- 
sham would  form  any  objection  to  liis  being  elected  a  member  of 
the  corporation,  or  establislicd  in  a  professorship. 

We  gave  no  opinion  as  to  tlie  kind  of  Unitarianism,  which  pre- 
vailed in  Boston.  But  let  us  look  at  the  leligious  state  of  this  me- 
tropolis, when  the  Review  was  written.  Over  the  Congregational, 
Ej)iscopalian,  and  Baptist  churches,  there  were  sixteen  pjistors. 
OF  these,  seven  Were  known  to  be  decided  Trinitarians.  \i  is  prob- 
able, that  all  the  remaining  nine  are  claimed  by  the  liberal  party. 
Wlien  our  Review  first  appeared,  and  we  were  so  loudly  cliarged 
with  falsehood,  it  was  unhesitatingly  admitted,  that  three  clergymen 
in  Boston  were  Unitarians  of  the  Priestleian  school.  Now  we  hum- 
bly conceive,  that  three  form  no  despicable  jjroportion  of  nine.  It 
might  be  ti-ue,  without  supposing  any  miracle,  that  throe  sliould 
have  a  predominant  influence  over  six.  Had  \\v  asserted,  that  Uni- 
tarianism of  Mr.  Belsham's  sort  was  tlie  predominant  religion  of 
the  liberal  party  in  Boston,  a  mere  statement  of  numbers,  such  as 
we  have  given,  would  by  no  means  prove  us  mistaken.  About  two 
months  before  our  Review  was  written,  one  clergyman  was  settled 
in  Boston  and  another  was  dismissed.  The  latter  gentleman  is, 
Ave  believe,  considered  as  a  Socinian  by  the  liberal  party.  He  has 
probably  been  praised  more  by  the  party,  within  two  >  ears  past, 
than  any  four  of  their  most  distinguished  men;  and  this  is  saying  a 
goodded.     If  not  a  Socinian  of  the  lowost  class,  which  wf»  bf?ievf 


16  Rcviexv  of  the  Unitarian  Coniroversi,; 

to  be  the  fa(  t,  lie  is  totally  opposed  to  the  scheme  taught  in  a  book, 
which  lias  tiie  modest  iitlc  (d"  B'Mt  ?s\ics.  It  appears,  then,  that 
the  (1(1  ;i;vuien  in  Boston,  v.'ho  m  ere  {i,enerally  reputed  Socinians, 
\vereJo/<r  in  nmnot-r,  but  a  short  time  before  tlie  Ileview  was  written^ 
and  tliat  ail  llie  t>(ijer  cleigymen  of  the  liberal  party,  in  that  town, 
weie  but^^ri'.  I'here  have  heen  man}"  changes  among  the  clergy 
of  iJoston  witliin  six  years  past,  and  it  is  not  always  easy  to  ascer- 
tain the  relative  inlluence  of  numerous  individuals  of  the  same  par- 
ty; but  of  this  we  are  confident,  that,  during  the  whole  course  of 
tin'  jieriod  mentioned,  the  Socinian  part  of  the  Bostoji  clergy  has  rc- 
eei\ed  twice,  if  not  five  times,  as  much  praise,  as  all  the  other  Uni- 
tarian clergy  of  the  town.  Praise  may  not  be  a  very  exact  meas- 
urt>  of  inlluence;  but  wiicre  an  exuberance  of  praise  is  bestowed,  it 
is  natural  to  suj)pose  tJuit  some  inlluence  is  possessed.  It  is  our 
deliberate  opinion,  that  those  clergymen  in  Boston,  who,  for  sever- 
al years  past,  have  favored  Sociniauism  rather  than  ajiy  higher 
kind  of  Lnitarianism,  have  possessed  m(»rc  talents,  morclearning, 
moj-e  activity,  and  moj-e  inlluence,  than  the  rest  of  the  U)iitarian 
t:lergy  of  Bos;on.  h\  this  opinion  we  may  be  mistakenj  but  it  is 
by  no  means  peculiar  to  ourselves. 

If  we  look  at  tlie  ''respectable  laymen,"  who  are  declared  by  Mr. 
Wells  to  be  Unitarian,  those  of  tliem,  who  are  generally  reputed 
Socinians,  are  by  no  means  to  be  disreganled,  in  settling  the  ques- 
tion of  inlluence.  The  congregation  of  Dr.  Freeman  contains 
many  persons,  who  have  no  small  share  of  weight  in  society.  Of 
these  we  have  mcutioned  two,  as  members  of  the  corporation.  Nor 
arc  the  lay  So(Mniaus  of  Boston  conrmed  to  the  congregation  of  Dr, 
Freeman.  We  do  not  think  tliat  Mr.  Wells  shindd  be  entirely 
overlooked.  He  is  a  man  of  literature;  and,  in  consequence  of  his 
connexion  with  the  press,  we  doubt  whether  he  has  been  second  to 
any  erne,  in  the  services  which  he  has  rendered  to  the  Unitarian 
cause.  Leaving  the  metropolis,  nearly  all  the  laymen  of  the  liber- 
al party,  who  have  been  extolled  foi*  their  learning,  and  their  bibli- 
cal erudition,  have  been  represented  to  us  as  Socinians. 

On  tiie  wliole,  we  solemidy  declare  to  our  readers,  that  we  have 
taken  into  consideiation  the  I'eputed  learning,  talents,  and  influ- 
ence, of  al!  the  j)rominent  indiN  iduals  (sf  the  liberal  party;  we  have 
looked  at  these  gentlemen,  one  by  one,  and  endeavoi-ed  to  make  an 
impartial  estimate  of  their  relative  and  aggregate  influence;  we 
have  done  this  repeatedly,  both  before  and  since  our  Review  was 
publislied;  and  the  result  has  uniforndy  been  a  conviction,  that  the 
predominant  r*  ligion  of  the  libei'al  party  is  Sociniauism;  i.e.  Uni- 
tarianism  in  IMr.  Belsham's  sense  of  the  word.  By  this  we  do  not 
intend,  that  the  opeii,  fixed,  avowed  Socinians  form  a  majority  of 
the  liberal  party;  but  that  these  persons,  and  their  adherents,  ex- 
ert a  greater  power  in  foi'miiig  the  religious  character  of  this  coun- 
try, tlian  is  exerted  by  all  other  classes  of  Unitarians. 

In  foitning  this  opinion,  we  have  considered,  that  as  Socinians 
are  more  fixed  in  tlieir  i-eligious  tenets,  than  their  Unitarian  breth- 
ten  are,  or  ever  have  been,  the  influence  of  Socinians  is  directly 


Review  of  the  Unitarian  Controversy.  17 

and  constantly  operative  in  tlie  promulgation  (f  their  peculiar  doc- 
trines; while  the  influence  of  otiier  Uiutai-iaus,  so  far  as  it  relates 
to  tiiis  subject,  is  piincipally  exerted  to  produce  a  disbelief  of  the 
doctrines  of  tne  Trinity  and  tlie  proper  Di\  luity  of  Christ,  leaving 
their  converts  in  a  state  of  endless  vacillation  and  perplexity,  in  re- 
gard to  the  character  of  our  Savior,  till  they  .i^radually  sink  down 
into  Socinianisni.  Dr.  Freeman  evidently  considers  the  negative 
preacliing,  which  he  has  so  well  described,  as  favoring-  his  own  re- 
ligious system.  It  is  to  be  observed,  further,  t!iat  the  most  popu- 
lar Socinian  writers  do  not  hesitate  to  cliarge  every  species  of  Ari- 
anism  with  the  grossest  absurdity j  and  to  stiguiatize  *as  idolatry 
that  inferior  kind  of  religious  homage,  which  the  higher  classes  of  U- 
nitarians  render  to  Christ.  Thus  Socinians  are  able  to  direct  against 
Arians  many  of  the  most  plausible  arguments,  wliich  tlie  latter  al- 
lege against  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  This  gives  them  no  in- 
considerable advantage.  We  do  not  believe,  that  Unitarianism.  in 
any  form,  is  about  to  prevail  in  this  country;  but,  should  it  prevail, 
we  have  no  doubt  it  will  appear  under  the  character  of  open,  avow- 
ed, Socinianism,  which,  in  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Belsham  and  his 
friends,  is  the  only  consistent  Unitarianism. 

The  remaining  passage,  which  Mr.  Channing  quotes  from  our 
Review,  for  the  purpose  of  supporting  his  charge  of  falsehood,  is 
the  following:  "The  liberal  party  mutilate  tiie  New  Testament,  re- 
ject nearly  all  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Gospel,  and  degrade 
the  Savior  to  the  condition  of  a  fallible,  peccable,  and  ignorant 
man."  Wc  cannot  do  better,  in  reference  to  this  passage,  than  to 
quote  the  vindication  of  it,  which  is  to  be  found  in  Dr.  Worcester's 
First  Letter.  We  are  happy  to  give  this  long  quotation,  not  only 
because  it  is  a  perfect  vindication  of  ourselves,  but  because  it  is  a 
fair  specimen  of  the  uprigiit,  honorable,  and  forcible  maimer,  in 
which  Dr.  W.  conducts  his  discussion.  If  our  readers  suppose  us 
biassed  in  favor  of  a  friend  and  advocate,  all  he  have  to  say  is,  let 
than  judge  for  themselves. 

"This  is  the  last  of  the  three  passages  wliich  you  have  cited  to  shew  that 
the  "Review  asserts,  that  the  ministers  (if  Boston  and  the  vicinity,  and  the 
great  body  of  liberal  Christians,  are  Unitarians,  in  Mr.  Belsham's  sense  uf 
the  word,"  and  upon  which  you  ground  your  principal  accusation  of  falser 
hood.  But  is  it  here  asserted,  that  all  the  individuals  of  the  liberal  ]>artv 
actually  do  the  things,  and  all  of  them,  which  tlie  party  is  said  to  dfi?  Is  this 
a  fair  intei-pretation  of  the  passage?  Or  if  it  admits  of  this,  does  it  fairly  ad- 
mit of  no  otliei ■? 

"The  apostles.  Sir,  as  you  very  well  know,  repeatedly  charge  the  Jewish 
rulers  and  people,  generally,  even  "the  great  body"  of  the  nation,  with  hav- 
ing "crucified  and  slain  the  Lord  of  life  and  glory."  Yet,  as  you  also  know, 
but  a  very  small  part  of  that  gre^nt  bod\-  actually  imbrued  their  hands  in  his 
blood.  But  some  of  them  did;*^  and  ol'  the  rest,  some  more,  and  others  less  di- 
rectly, consented  to  the  deed.  Hence  they  were  generally  involved  in  the 
guilt,  and  brought  under  the  ciiarge;  and  upon  the  great  body,  eventually, 
"wrath  came  to  the  uttermost."  Such  was  the  judgment  of  the  apostles; 
and  such  the  judgment  of  Him,  whose  throne  is  established  in  righteousness. 
— And,  Sir,  if  among  the  liberal  party,  the  things  charged  by  the  RcAiewer 
arc  dono;  if  some  of  the  partv  do  actually,  "mutilate  the  Nev,-  Testament, 
S 


]8  Revicvj  of  the  Unitdrian  Conirovcr&y, 

reject  nearly  all  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Gospel,  and  degrade  the 
Savior  to  the  condition  of  a  fallible,  peccable,  and  ignorant  man," — and  of 
the  rest,  some  more,  and  others  less  directly,  consent  to  all  this;  if,  as  a  par- 
ty, or  as  individuals  of  the  party,  they  bear  no  decided  testimony  against 
these  dtedii,  and  do  nothing  effectually  to  secure,  or  to  purge  themselves  from 
the  guilt  of  them;  then,  is  it  not  true,  and  right,  and  proper  to  say  of  the  par- 
ty generally,  that  they  do  these  things-'  and  will  they  not  generally,  with  all 
who  adhere  to  them,  be  held  to  answer  for  them  at  the  bar  of  the  righteous 
Judge? 

"But  are  not  these  things  done: — I  tremble,  my  dear  Sir,  while  I  put  this 
question  to  your  conscience: — tremble,  not  because  I  feel  that  I  am  doing 
wrong;  but  because  I  consider  it  a  question  of  infinite  solemnity. — It  surely 
"will  not  be  denied,  that  "the  New  Testament  is  mutilated;" — it  will  not  be 
denied,  that  "the  Savior  is  degraded  to  the  condition  of  a  fallible,  peccable, 
and  ignorant  man;" — nor  should  it  any  more  be  denied,  that  "nearly  all  the 
fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Gospel  are  rejected."  I  do  believe  you  will 
yourself  admit,  that  nearly  all  the  doctrines  are  rejected,  which  by  the  ven- 
erable founders  of  the  New  England  churches  were  held  as  fundamental; — 
which  the  great  body  of  the  Protestant  churches,  since  the  Reformation,  have 
held  as  fundamental. 

"How  great  a  proportion  of  the  liberal  party  actually  do  all  this,  and  to  how- 
great  an  extent  the  rest  of  them  consent  to  it,  I  would  be  devoutly  thankful, 
that  I  am  not  particularly  concerned  to  determine.  But  I  must  seriously  ask, 
Avhether,  from  the  representations  made  in  your  Letter,  were  there  no  other 
means  of  judging  in  the  case,  there  would  not  be  most  fearful  reason  to  ap- 
prehend, that  you  and  your  liberal  brethren  generally  have  done  but  very  lit- 
tle to  secure  yourselves  from  the  general  charge;  or,  I  must  add,  to  purge 
yourselves  from  the  general  guilt? — It  grieves  me,  dear  Sir,  to  state,  that  in 
your  Letter,  you  tell  us,  in  so  many  words,  that  "to  believe  with  Mr.  Belsham 
is  no  crime:" — by  which  I  understand,  no  sin, — no  offence  against  God — 
against  Christ — against  the  Gosjjel — against  the  cause  and  kingdom  of  truth 
and  holiness. — No  sin — no  offence,  to  hold  Christ  to  have  been  no  more  than 
"a  fallible,  peccable,  and  ignorant  man;" — to  discard  those  pai-ts  of  the  New 
Testament  which  assert  his  pre-existence,  his  miraculous  conception,  his  di- 
vinity, and  his  atonement,  as  either  spurious,  erroneous,  or  ext^-avagantly  hy- 
perbolical;— to  deny  that  his  death  was  an  expiatory  sacrifice  for  sin,  that 
"we  owe  him  any  gratitude  for  the  benefits  which  we  are  now  receiving," 
that  "we  have  any  reason  to  hope  for  liis  futui-e  interposition;" — to  deny  the 
inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  generally,  and  reject  all  the  fundamental,  all  the 
peculiar  doctrines  of  the  Gospel! — You  are  also  most  studiously  careful,  most 
exquisitely  tendei',  lest  any  "statement  you  make  should  be  considered,  as 
casting  the  least  reproach  on  those  amongst  us,  who  believe  in  the  simple  hu- 
manity of  Jesus  Christ;"  and,  of  course,  agree  with  Mr.  Belsham,  if  not  in 
all,  yet  certainly  in  the  most  material  articles  of  his  creed: — most  studiously 
careful,  most  exquisitely  tender,  lest  you  should  wound  their  feelings,  abridge 
their  influence,  or  iiinder  their  success  in  propagating  their  sentiments!  And 
from  other  parts  of  your  Letter,  it  would  seem  that  such  has  been  the  uni- 
form feeling,  and  conformable  to  it  the  uniform  practice,  not  only  of  yourself, 
but  of  your  liberal  brethren  in  general. 

"Now,  Sir,  if  such  is  the  real  fact,  however  small  a  proportion  of  the  lib- 
eral party  those  may  be,  who  actually  do  the  things  in  question;  yet  is  it  not 
perfectly  correct  to  say,  generally,  that  the  liberal  party  do  them.  And  if  so, 
where  is  the  foundation  for  the  serious  charge  of  falsehood,  so  vehemently 
urged  aganist  the  Reviewer.-'"   pp.  10 — 12. 

It  is  in  the  way,  wliicli  Di*.  W.  describes,  and  in  that  way  only, 
that  a  ]mri^  can  ever  be  made  responsible  for  any  thing.  I'h'e  lead- 
ing, prominent,  active  members  of  a  party  arc  always  comjiarativcly 
lew.    Those,  who  do  not  act  on  a  large  scale,  are  responsible  for 


Revieiu  of  the  Unitarian  Controversy.  19 

yielding  their  influence  to  others  who  do  act  thus.  This  matter  is 
always  perfectly  understood  in  politics.  Suppose  the  leader  of  a 
political  party  to  be  chargeable  with  certain  alleged  misconduct;  is 
it  impossible  that  the  party  should  be  made  responsible  for  it?  By 
no  means.  If  the  leader  in  question  is  notoriously  a  leader  of  the 
party,  and  if  the  party  do  not  protest  against  his  conduct,  or  dis- 
claim it;  especially  if  they  give  him  new  proofs  of  their  confidence, 
and  do  all  in  their  power  to  sustain  and  augment  his  influence,  they 
are  undoubtedly,  in  the  eye  of  conscience,  and  of  God,  responsible 
for  what  he  has  done. 

Whether  the  liberal  party  patronized  the  Improved  Version  of 
the  New  Testament,  or  not,  we  shall  not  now  examine.  On  this 
topic,  we  refer  the  reader  to  what  was  said  in  our  number  for  April. 
1813.  Whatever  may  be  said  by  Mr.  C.  or  anyone  else,  we^osf- 
tixelij  know,  that  the  liberal  party  patronized  that  work.  To  ex- 
plain ourselves,  we  know  that  leading  members  of  the  party  greedi- 
ly purchased  it,  gave  it  away  in  charity,  urged  others  to  do  the 
same,  applauded  it,  and  publicly  declared  eoncernhig  it,  in  the 
General  Repository,  that  it  is  "a  version  far  more  faithful,  more 
correct,  and  more  intelligible,  than  that  in  common  use."  We  ful- 
ly believe,  that  leading  members  of  the  party  once  intended  to  be- 
stow it  in  charity,  under  the  sanction  of  Bible  Societies.  Our  be- 
lief is  tounded,  in  part,  on  the  opposition  expressed  by  some  of 
these  leading  members  to  the  formation  of  a  certain  Bible  Society, 
which  opposition  was  supported  by  the  express  declaration,  that 
the  pej'sons  who  made  it  were  unwilling  to  give  away  the  Bible  in 
our  common  versioii.  And  if  the  Improved  Version  is  "far  more 
faithful,  more  correct,  and  more  intelligible,  than  that  in  common 
use,"  as  it  is  declared  to  be,  in  a  work  published  by  gentlemen, 
who  hold  oflices  of  instruction  and  government  in  Harvard  College, 
why  should  it  not  be  given  away  by  Bible  Societies?  Thougli 
Mr.  C  would  seem  to  disapprove  of  this  version,  it  is  remarkable 
that  his  disapprobation,  (if  disfipprebation  it  can  be  called.)  is 
couched  in  the  mildest  terms.  "1  can  scarcely  remember  an  indi- 
vidual," says  he,  "who,  in  speaking  of  this  version,  has  not  ex- 
pressed an  unfavorable  opinion  at  least  of  some  of  its  notes."  Ik 
this  all?  If  so,  it  goes  but  a  little  way  towards  proving,  that  the 
liberal  party  did  not  patronize  the  work.  Many  an  individual 
might  be  very  much  engaged  in  circulating  a  book,  and  yet  'ex- 
press an  unfavorable  opinion  of  some  of  its  notes.'  The  Editors  of 
the  Improved  Version  have  most  audaciously  rejected  whole  chap- 
ters of  the  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke;  and  this,  by  their  own 
confession,  against  the  authority  of  all  the  manuscripts  and  versions 
extant;  they  have  explained  away  nearly  all  the  fundamental  doc- 
trines of  the  Gospel,  and  wrested  the  whole  New  Testament,  so 
that  it  may  speak  the  language  of  their  sect:  and  yet,  all  that  Mr. 
C.  can  find  in  his  heart  to  say  against  this  version,  is  expressed  in 
the  cautious  and  guarded  sentence  just  quoted.  It  is  of  very  little 
const  quence,  whether  Mr.  C.  pronounces  a  faint  or  a  full  cctndemna 
tion  of  the  Improved  Version.     The  weakness  and  absurdities  o! 


.  (!)  Rcvieni)  of  the  Unitarian  Controversy. 

that  work  have  been  set  in  so  clear  a  light  by  Magee,  Nares,  Lau- 
rence, and  others,  that  it  can  never  sustain  any  character,  but  a 
bad  one;  and  must  gradually  sink  into  oblivion,  the  eifortsofthe 
General  Repository  to  uphold  it  notwithstanding. 

y\'e  must  bestow  a  word  or  tw  o  upon  the  following  pjissage  in  Mr. 
Chainiing's  Letter. 

"The  conduct  of  the  Revievver,  in  collecting  all  the  opinions  of  that  gentle- 
man, [Mr.  Belsham,]  not  only  on  the  Trinity,  but  on  evev\  other  theokgical 
subject,  in  giving  the  luhole  collection  the  name  of  Unitaria72is7n,  and  in  ex- 
hibiting this  to  the  world  as  the  creed  of  liberal  Christians  in  this  region,  is 
])erhaps  as  criminal  an  instance  of  unfairness,  as  is  to  be  found  in  the  records 
of  ti.euiogical  controversy."  p.  7. 

After  the  preceding  discussions,  it  cannot  be  necessary  that  we 
should  go  into  a  particular  examination  of  this  charge. 

"We  did  not  <collectall  the  theological  opinions  of  Mr.  Belsham;' 
but  those  opinions  only,  whicli  relate  to  the  most  important  sub- 
jects of  Divine  Revelation.  It  was  ob\  iously  propei-  to  gi\  e  his 
views  on  these  subjects,  as  our  readers  could  in  no  other  way  be 
made  acquainted  with  the  prominent  features  of  his  theological  sys- 
ten;;  and  Mr.  C.  knows  very  well,  that  the  tendency  of  a  sijstemis 
not  apparent  to  all  readeis,  from  the  mere  statement  of  a  ])aiticular 
doctrine.  The  various  j)arts  of  Mj-.  Belsham's  sciieme  are  depend- 
ent upon  each  other.  The  history  of  modern  Uuitarianisu)  clearly 
proves,  that  w  lien  the  docti'ine  of  the  Trinity  is  rejected,  the  de- 
scent is  rapid,  and  almost  unifirm,  to  the  lowest  kind  of  Socinian- 
ism.  This  is  the  last  stage,  in  the  course  tow  ard  downright,  avow- 
ed, infidelity.  It  is  impossible  to  go  further,  and  claim  tlie  appclhi- 
tion  of  C'luistians.  But  other  classes  of  Unitarians  ai'e  in  a  state 
of  perjjetual  fluctuation,  doubt,  aiul  uncertainty.  They  cannot  de- 
scribe their  own  creed,  so  that  the  description  shall  answer  for 
any  length  of  time. 

S\t  did  not  'give  to  this  collection  the  name  of  Unitarianism.' 
Mr.  Belsham,  indeed,  claimed  that  word,  as  the  property  of  him- 
self and  his  friends;  and  we  have  seen  from  Evans,  that  the  ch.ini 
has  been  extensively  admitted.  Mr.  B.  did  not  speak  in  his  own 
name  only,  but  in  the  name  of  his  party;  and  tlie  same  party,  on 
both  sides  of  the  Atlantic,  now  use  the  name  as  strictly,  and  often 
as  exclusively,  appropriate  to  themselves. 

AVe  did  not  'exhibit  this  collection  as  the  creed  of  liberal  Chi'is- 
tians  in  this  region.'  There  is  n()thing  to  warrant  such  an  asser- 
tion, unless  it  be  the  passages,  which  luvve  been  already  consider- 
ed.    How  far  they  w  arrant  it,  we  leave  others  to  decide. 

\\  e  remark  here,  that  if  our  Review  did  iu\i  jjcoperly  describe 
the  liberal  jiarty,  as  to  its  sub-divisi(,ns,  and  their  iclative  inihi- 
cnce,  our  deli(  iency  must  be  ascribed  to  the  facts,  that  Mr.  Bel- 
sham was  the  historian  of  the  party,  and  that  we  placed  much  reli- 
ance on  him  and  his  Boston  correspondents;  and  to  anotiier  notori- 
ous fact,  that  many  of  the  clei'gy  oi  the  liberal  party  have,  till  late- 
ly, studiously  concealed  their  religious  opinions.     We  say  tilt  lately. 


Review  of  the  Unitarian  Controversi; ■  ul 

because  a  considerable  cbange  bas  taken  place,  in  tliis  paiticular. 
since  our  Review  was  piiblisbcd.     troni  Mr.  Cbanning's  account 
6f  liis  own  preacbiui^,  we  tbink  it  would  be  impossible  for  bis  bear- 
ers to  tell  wbat  sort  of  Unitarianism  be  beld.     Witb  w liat  proprie- 
ty, tben,  could  be  demand  of  us,  that  Me  sbould  know  in  exacti) 
wbat  class  be,  and  bis  particular  friends,  ougbt  to  be  reckoned?  Mr. 
Belsbam  wrote  a  professed  bistory  of  Unitarianism  in  tbis  country. 
lie  gave  bis  autborities  witbout  besitation  or  reluctance;  and  he  was 
no  stranger  to  tbe  party  of  wbom  be  wrote.     He  bas  be^'n  visited 
by  clergymen  of  ibe  liberal  party,  wbo  bave  been  in  England;  we 
are  informed  tbey  preacbed  in  bis  pulpit;  and  be  bas  corresponded 
"with  otbers.     He  supposed  be  knew  tbe  party  in  tbis  country  per- 
fectly well,   and  was  abundantly  able  to  write  ibeir  bistory.     We 
believe  be  knew  mucb  more  about  tlieir  religious  doctrines,  tlian  it 
was  easy  for  an  ortbodox  man  to  know.     AVbile  Me  relied  upon  tbe 
testimony  of  Dr.  Freeman  and  Mr.  Wells,  we  felt  ourselves  on  safe 
ground.     But  bad  we  attempted  to  go  beyond  tbese  autborities,  and 
write  a  particular  bistory  of  tbe   various  opinions  beld  by  all  tbe 
clergy  of  tbe  liberal  party,  we  should  have  found  ourselves  deplor- 
ably destitute  of  materials. 

From  wbat  bas  already  been  offered  in  tbis  article,  it  must  ap- 
pear, we  think,  even  to  Mr.  Channing  himself,  tbat  tbe  (barge  of 
falsehood  is  not  tiie  proper  c barge  to  be  preferred  against  us,  if  we 
bad  made  an  erroneous  estimate  of  the  influence  of  Socinians. 
How  often  do  men  mistake,  in  weighing  the  influence  of  different 
political  parties?  or  of  different  and  jari-ing  interests  in  tbe  same 
party?  And  how  indecorous  is  it,  how  ungentlemanly,  to  stigma- 
tize every  such  error  as  a  falsehood?  Look,  for  example,  at  tlic 
present  state  of  France.  Men  of  intelligence,  wbo  bave  resided 
long  at  Paris,  are  now  divided  in  opinion,  as  to  wbat  wei'e  tbe  real 
wishes  of  a  majority  of  tiie  French  people,  in  reference  to  Napole- 
on and  tbe  Bourbons,  in  tbe  spring  of  1814,  and  the  fall  of  tbat 
year,  in  the  spring  of  1815,  and  subsequently  to  tbe  battle  of  Wa- 
terloo. Some  of  tbese  men  ai-e  doubtless  mistaken  in  their  esti- 
mate of  parties.  Shall  tbey  of  course  be  charged  with  falseboodi 
We  mean  not  to  admit,  tbat  there  is  any  good  reaso)i  to  sujtposc 
tbe  statement,  which  we  made,  to  be  erroneous.  But  if  it  bad  been 
proved  to  be  erroneous,  which  is  far  enough  from  tlie  fact,  a  vehe- 
ment charge  of  falsehood  would  never  bave  been  resorted  to,  unless 
tbe  mind  of  Mr.  C.  bad  been  in  a  state  very  different  from  that, 
which  is  favorable  to  a  dis{)assionate  inquiry  after  truth. 

There  is  one  more  passage  in  Mr.  Cbanning-'s  Letter,  which  a 
proper  regai'd  to  our  own  cliaracter  induces  us  to  examine.  It  is 
that,  in  which  we  are  accused  of  having  "di.storted"  a  })art  of  Mr. 
Wells's  letter  to  Mr.  Belsham.  In  an  early  part  of  the  Review, 
we  had  quoted  tbe  whole  of  tbis  letter;  and  towards  tbe  close  of  our 
discussion  we  offered  some  remarks  upon  it,  quoting  plirases  and 
parts  of  sentences,  as  is  universally  custonniry,  when  writeis  are 
commenting  on  passages,  ^bicb  bave  been  previously  quoted,  or 
which  are  already  sufficiently  known  to  their  rradi>rs.     Among 


22  .Revieio  of  the  UnUarian  Controversy. 

those  parts  of  sentences,  thus  quoted  from  Mr.  Wells's  letter,  a  pas- 
sage occurs,  whicli  cvidejitly  gave  JNIi-.  C.  no  common  degree  of 
pain. After  mentioning  it,  and  la}  ing  it  before  his  readei-s,  he  gives 
vent  to  his  feelings  in  the  following  words. 

"This  passage,  as  it  stands  in  the  Review,  has  the  marks  of  quotation,  as 
if  taken  from  Mr.  Wells's  letter.  Let  me  ask  you  to  look  back,  and  compare 
it  carefully  with  the  second  sentence,  which  1  have  extracted  from  that  let- 
ter. You  percieve,  that  by  mutilating  that  sentence,  and  by  printing  the  last 
Avorcis  in  Italics,  the  reviewer  has  entirely  done  away  tlie'  meaning  cf  Mr. 
Wells,  and  contrived  to  give  to  the  common  reader  a  directly  opposite  im- 
pres  ion  to  what  that  gentleman  intended  to  convey.  An  unperverted  mind 
turns  with  sorrow  and  disgust  from  such  uncharitable  and  disingenuous  deal- 
ing; and  why  all  this  labor  to  distort  what  is  so  plain?  The  object  is,  to  iix 
the  character  c)f  knaves  and  hypocrites  on  a  lai-ge  class  of  Christians  and 
Christian  ministers.  1  might  here  be  permitted  to  dip  my  pen  in  gall;  but  I 
do  not  write  for  those,  wliose  moral  feeling  is  so  dull,  as  to  need  indignant 
comment  on  practices  like  these."  p.  12. 

In  this  paragraph  wo  arc  plainly  charged  \\  ith  having  mutilated 
a  passage  in  Mr.  Wells's  Icttoi-,  for  the  purpose  of  giving  a  false 
impression,  and  of  fixing  the  character  of  knaves  and  hyijocrites  on 
men,  w!io  do  not  deserve  sucli  a  charactoi'.  The  language  of  Mr. 
C.  evidently  assumcy  it  as  an  undoubted  fact,  that  we  had  incurred 
the  guilt  of  wilCul  and  malicious  falsehood,  perpetrated  in  a  very 
base  manncj-,  and  for  a  most  detestable  purpose.  If  this  represen- 
tation of  our  coiuluct  is  a  just  one,  we  freely  confess  that  it  admits 
of  no  excuse  nor  apology,-  and  that  nothing  hut  the  sincerest  peni- 
tence, and  the  amplest  reparation,  could  be  urged  as  a  reason  why 
a  sentence  of  severe  I'epi-obation  should  not  be  pronounced  against 
US.  We  have  always  considered,  and  wished  our  readei's  to  con- 
sider, a  designed  niisqiuitation,  niade  for  the  purpose  of  injuiing  a 
writer,  or  any  other  person,  as  one  of  the  foulest  crimes.  It  is  a 
crime  not  unfrequcjitly  committed,  in  this  fallen  worldj  but,  like 
many  other  crjjites,  it  is  not  unlrequcntly  chai-god  upon  the  inno- 
cent. Of  this  every  ])erson  must  bo,  convinced,  who  has  read  much 
contro\ersy,  either  literary,  political,  or  religious.  AMien  a  writer 
feels  himself  in  difliculty,  it  is  an  easy  matter  to  raise  a  clamor 
about  misrepresentation,  or  misquotation.  It  would  be  a  wonder  if 
he  could  not  say  some  things,  on  these  topics,  which  w  oidd  appear 
plausible  to  supcriicial  readers,  or  to  those  who  ai'c  willing  to  take 
liis  word  without  examination.  It  is  impossible  to  quote  whole 
chapters,  whole  paragraphs,  or  even  whole  sentences,  every  time 
an  autiior  is  alliuled  to,  unless  the  reviewer  is  disposed  to  incum- 
ber his  discoiii'se,  so  as  to  make  it  intolerably  tedious  to  e\cry 
j'oader. 

We  liavc  aluavs  beeji  reli.i;iously  scrupulous  on  this  subject. 
Vie  ha^e  been  unifo»*mly  carefid  Jiot  only  to  give  the  meaning,  but 
the  words,  (if  the  wiiter;  and  when  we  have  found  it  necessaiy  to 
quote  phi-ases  and  parts  of  sentences,  we  have  been  particularly 
cautious  thiit  no  injustice  sliould  be  done  through  haste  or  inatten- 
tion.    A  careless  niis<[uotalion  we  think  should  be  severely  blamed^ 


Review  of  (he  Unitarian  Controversy.  2Z- 

a  wilful  one,  utterly  abhorred.  Whether  we  have  erred  through 
carelessness,  let  the  readers  of  our  past  volumes  examine  and  de- 
cide. Thai  we  have  never  been  guilty  of  a  wilful  misquotation,  we 
certainly  know.  We  should  as  soon  think  of  robhing  on  the  high- 
way. 

Lotus  now  look  at  the  passage,  which  Mr.  C.  accuses  us  of  hav- 
ing misquoted  for  so  base  a  purpose.  This  passage,  as  it  was  pub- 
lished in  tlie  Panoplist,  p.  253,  where  it  forms  a  pai-t  of  Mr.  Wells's 
letter  to  Mr.  Belsham,  and  is  accurately  printed  from  the  London 
copy  of  Mr.  Belsham's  book,  reads  as  follows:  '-Most  of  our  Bos- 
ton Clergy  and  respectable  laymen  (of  whom  we  have  many  en- 
lightened theologians)  are  Unitarian.  Nor  do  they  think  it  at  all 
necessary  to  conceal  their  sentiments  upon  these  subjects,  but  ex- 
press them  without  the  least  hesitation  w lien  they  judge  it  proper.'* 
In  examining  Mr.  Wells's  letter,  we  thought  our  readers  would  be 
gratified  by  seeing,  in  a  connected  view,  a  long  string  of  laudatory 
epithets,  w  liich  Mr.  W.  had  bestowed  upon  the  liberal  party  and 
their  cause.  After  quoting  a  high-sounding  catalogue  of  honorable 
qualities,  which  he  had  attrsltuted  to  his  own  party,  we  selected  the 
persons f  whom  he  had  distinguished  by  liis  praises.  Tiie  list  may 
be  found  at  page  2G9,  and  runs  thus:  ''Wiien  we  come  to  persons, 
we  find  "Mr.  Norton,  an  excellent  young  man,"  "the  very  wortiiy 
and  learned  Dr.  Ware,"  •»Dr.  Kirkland  the  president,"  "most  of 
the  Boston  clergy  and  respectable  laymen,  (many  of  whom  are  en- 
lightened theologians.)  who  do  not  conceal  their  sentiments,  but 
express  tjieni,  when  thtij  judge  it  propevy'-  and  "Judge  Thatcher,  au 
excellent  man  and  most  zealous  Unitarian:"  tliese  ai-e  drawn  up  in 
battle-array,  in  tlie  liberal  I'anks."  Now  the  reader  will  easily  see, 
tiiat  if  we  had  quoted  all  tlie  sentences,  from  which  the  foregoing 
phrases  are  taken,  we  should  have  merely  re-quoted  a  great  part 
of  Mr.  W.'s  letter;  a  mode  of  proceeding,  which  would  have  been 
altogethei'  futile,  as  we  bad  previously  given  the  whole  letter.  We 
do  not  suppose,  that  Mr.  C.  is  to  be  understood  as  blaming  the 
mere  quotation  of  phrases  and  parts  of  sentences;  for  lie  quotes  in 
scarcely  any  other  way.  But  it  is  the  alleged  alteration  of  Mr. 
W^ells's  meaning,  which  he  so  strongly  condemns.  On  this  point 
we  are  at  issue  with  him.  We  deny  t'lat  the  meaning  of  Mr.  W. 
was  altered,  in  any  other  manner'  than  is  implied  in  making  a  fail* 
abridgement:  and,  as  to  the  correctness  of  this  denial,  we  confi- 
dently appeal  to  our  readers.  When  we  wrote  the  abridged  sen- 
tence, we  were  particularly  careful  that  Mr.  W.  should  not  suffer 
from  it.  We  considered,  indeed,  tliat  the  passage  w as  weakened 
by  any  abridgment;  but  the  alteration,  inconsiderable  as  it  was, 
appeared  to  us  favorable  to  the  party  which  ]Mr.  W.  was  describ- 
Lng.  We  should  have  much  prefei'red  giving  the  whole  of  Mr. 
W.'s  two  sentences,  even  for  the  purpose  which  we  then  had  in 
view,  could  we  have  done  it,  and  yet  form  the  whole  string  of 
encomiums,  so  that  they  could  be  read  in  continuity.  This  we  en- 
deavored to  do,  but  were  not  able.  Mr.  C.  says,  that  the  passage 
''has  the  marks  of  quotation,  as  if  taken  from  Mr.  Wells's  letter.** 


^4  lieviev)  of  the  Unitanan  Co7itroverstj, 

We  reply,  that  it  is  taken  from  Mr.  W.'s  letter,  though  in  au 
abridged  furni.  He  adds,  that  *'thc  reviewer  has  entirely  done 
away  the  meaning  of  Mr.  Wells."  This  we  totally  deny^  and  we 
regret  much  that  Mr.  C.  did  not  state  what  that  meaning  is,  \\  hich 
we  had  done  away.  He  j)i'occcds  to  allege,  that  we  "contiived  to 
give  to  the  common  reader  a  directly  opposite  impression  to  \\hat 
that  gentleman  intended  to  convey."  We  are  here  again  obliged 
to  content  ourselves  with  a  positive  denial;  for  Mr.  C.  docs  not 
vouchsafe  us  any  explanation  of  what  he  means  by  that  'Hlirectly  op- 
posite impression,^'  whicli  we  had  "contrived  to  give  to  the  common 
reader."  \^  e  can  see  but  one  meaning,  which  any  reader,  common 
or  uncommon,  can  gather  from  the  passage  in  question,  eitlier  in 
its  original  or  its  abridged  form.  Does  not  Mr.  Wells  say,  that 
♦•mf)st  of  the  Boston  clergy  and  respectable  laymen  do  not  conceal 
their  sentiments?"  He  says,  at  least,  that  <they  d)  not  think  it  ne- 
cessary to  conceal  their  sentiments  on  tlicse  subjects;'  by  whicli  Me 
;>upposed  him  to  mean,  that  tiiey  do  not,  in  fact,  conceal  their  senti- 
ments. Does  he  not  say,  that  these  clergymen  and  laymen  'express 
their  sentiments,  when  they  judge  it  proper?'  He  says,  tiiat  they 
'•express  theni,"'  [tiieir  sentiments,]  "without  the  least  hesitation, 
"when  they  judge  it  proper."  "Wliere  is  the  mighty  difference  be. 
tween  these  statcmenls?  ^^1icre  is  the  occasion  for  the  vehement 
wrath,  wliich  Mr.  C  poured  forth  on  this  subject?  We  shall  be 
iold,  perhaps,  that  the  difference  is  too  clear  to  require  to  be  speci- 
fied; and  that  our  crime  is  too  flagrant  to  need  a  particular  expo- 
sure. Such  language  is  very  cheap;  and  it  may  answer  in  the  cir- 
cle in  which  Mr.  Channing  moves;  but,  he  may  rest  assured,  it  will 
answer  no  where  else. 

It  appears,  however,  from  Mr.  Channing's  Remarks  on  Dr. 
Worcester's  first  letter,  that  our  princii)al  criminality  lies  in  print- 
ing the  last  five  words  of  the  quotation  in  Italics.  The  phrase, 
*^whcn  they  judge  it  proper,-'  seems  to  have  wonderfully  discompos- 
ed the  minds  of  Unitarians.  We  supposed  it  would;  not  because  it 
is  printed  in  Italics;  but  because  it  is  one  of  those  important  cir- 
cumstances, whicli  add  greatly  to  the  value  of  Mr.  W.'s  testimony, 
and  wiiich  prove,  more  conclusively  than  direct  assertions,  the  con- 
cealment which  has  been  });'actised  by  the  liberal  party.  Mr.  C 
alleges,  in  the  pamphlet  last  referred  to,  p.  34,  that  the  printing  of 
this  clause  in  Italics  "entirely  changes  the  meaning  of  the  sentence." 
How  it  does  this,  and  what  the  meaning  is  before  the  change,  and 
what  afterwards,  Mi-.  C.  does  not  inform  us;  nor  can  we  evtn  con- 
jecture what  the  complaint  of  jMr.  C.  amounts  to,  unless  it  be,  that 
we  did  very  wrong  to  call  tlie  attention  of  our  readers  to  the  clause 
in  question.  We  presume  the  legitimate  use  of  Italics  to  be  com- 
preliended  in  this  simple  rule;  viz.  that  a  reviewer,  or  any  other 
writer,  may  print  in  Italics  any  quoted  phrase  or  sentence,  to  which 
he  wislies  to  dinct  the  mind  of  the  reader.  All  that  we  understand 
hy  the  use  of  Italics,  in  quot;  d  passages,  is,  that  the  person  who 
quotes,  and  not  the  origimil  writer,  is  desirous  of  calling  attention 
to  such  passages.    The  practice  of  the  Christian  Obser^'cr,  and  of 


Review  of  the  Unitarian  Controverstj.  25 

every  respectable  modern  work,  is  conformed  to  this  rule.  Nay, 
the  piiirticc  of  Mr.  C.  himself  is  conformed  to  the  same  rule;  for 
he  (Uten  prints  in  italics  (pioted  passages,  which  are  not  thus  mark- 
ed by  the  oi'iginal  writers.  It  by  no  means  follows,  tliat  every 
cJause,  which  is,  or  may  be,  of  great  importance,  is.  considered  to 
be  important  by  the  writer.  Far  trom  it.  On  the  contrary,  many 
of  the  most  important  cii'cumstances  seem  to  owe  their  appearance 
to  mere  accident,  or  inadvertence.  In  the  production  and  examina- 
tion of  oral  testimony,  it  often  happens,  that  great  stress  is  justly 
laid  upon  a  word,  or  a  phrase,  w hich  tlie  w itness  iiimsclf  did  not 
thiidv  of  any  importance  whatever;  and  which  he  is  surpi'i.sed  to 
lind  taken  up  and  dsvelt  upon  with  such  interest.  We  feel,  there- 
fore, that  we  had  a  perfect  riglit  to  pi-int  the  words,  *'7vheu  they 
judge  it  proper,"  in  Italics;  that  we  did  no  injustice  to  Mr.  W.  by 
thus  printing  them;  and  that,  should  we  have  occasion  to  repeat 
the:?i,  we  shall  still  possess  the  right  of  ushig  Italics,  or  capitals, 
just  as  we  please. 

It  is  not  for  the  purpose  of  retorting,  or  retaliating,  but  to  pro- 
mote the  sober  ends  of  truth  and  justi(  e,  that  we  advise  Mr.  Chan- 
ning  to  look  at  the  manner  in  which  his  own  quotations  are  made. 
In  extra(  ting  from  Mr  Wells's  letter  tiie  very  sentence,  which  fur- 
nished him  with  a  pretext  for  the  violent  attack  upon  us,  he  is 
chargeable  with  a  gross  blunder.  Referring  to  this  sentence,  as 
we  had  abridged  it,  he  says  to  Mr.  Thacher;  "Let  me  ask  you  to 
look  back  and  compare  it  cai-efully  witii  the  second  sentence,  which 
1  have  extracted  from  that  lettej-."  Now  one  would  think,  that  if 
liC  w  ished  Mr.  T.  to  "compare  it  canfiilLij,''''  he  would  have  felt  the 
necessity  of  quoting  it  carefully.  Fai'  otherwise.  The  sentence, 
as  he  quotes  it,  reads  tlwis:  "iSor  do  they  think  it  at  all  necessary 
to  conceal  their  sentin»ents,  but  expi-ess  them  tvithout  reserve  when 
they  judge  it  proper."  The  real  sentence,  as  we  accurately  quoted 
it  at  large  in  Mr.  W.'s  letter,  has  the  latter  clause  thus:  "but  ex- 
press them  without  the  kast  he^titallon  when  tiiey  judge  it  proper." 
This  is  a  very  material  variaii(Mi.  It  so  far  alters  Mr.  W.'s  testi- 
nmny,  as  to  make  hini  declare  that  which  is  certainly  unfomidcd, 
where  he  had  said  nothing  but  the  truth:  for  thougli  the  clergy  of 
the  liberal  })arty  may  'express  their  sentinjents,'  or  at  least  some  of 
them,  *'rvilhout  the  least  hesilatioii,'^  in  conversation  with  their 
friends,  and  "wiiEiV  they  judck  it  proper;"  yet  they  never  do, 
and  )iever  can,  ou  any  occasion  whatever,  as  Mr.  Channing's 
writings  sufUciently  prove,  'expivss  their  sentiments  generally  wiif/i- 
ont  reserve.^  It  might  have  been  well,  if  Mr.  C  had  thought  more 
about  making  a  fair  and  accuiate  (piotation  himself,  antl  less  about 
*di})ping  his  pen  in  gall'  to  transform  a  perfectly  innocent  transac- 
tion into  a  heinous  crime. 

liut  this  is  not  the  worst  misquotation,  which  Mr.  C.  is  bound  to 
answer  for.  He  professes  to  give,  j).  10,  what  he  calls  "the  sec-, 
ond  charge  of  the  Review."  In  doing  this,  he  prints  a  sentence  of 
five  lines  with  marks  of  (piotatlcm,  so  tiiat  every  reader  would  sup- 
pose it  to  have  been  taken  rerhutim;  and  that  it  stood,  in  our  Review, 
4 


-5  Jicview  of  (he  Uiii'arv.n  Coninvers^j 

{IS  a  contimicd  sentence.  Tlie  fact  is,  tliatall  the  words  oi'the  sen- 
tence are  not  to  be  ioiiiid,  even  in  se])arate  clauses,  anv  where  in 
the  review,'  but  nearly  all  of  tlnin  are  to  be  i'ound  in  the  iollowins^ 
manner.  For  the  first  line  oi'the  sentence  you  must  searcii  p.  iI50 
oi'  the  I'anoplist;  for  the  second,  p.  251,  near  tiie  bottom:  for  the 
third,  p.  260;  and  the  two  last  may  be  discovered  in  p.  '262.  A 
fair  and  honorable  way,  indeed,  of  making;  quotations!  'I'his  is  not 
all.  if  our  meaning  had  been  correctly  i^'iven,  (supposing  it  possi- 
ble that  it  coidd  be  correctly  given,  in  a  sentence  thus  patched  nj),) 
we  should  nttt  complain.  i5ut  Mr.  C  represents  us  as  directing 
this  obiioxious  senlence  against  *»the  ministei'S  of  Boston  and  the 
vicinity,  ami  the  most  considerable  members  of  the  lil)eral  ])arty,'* 
whei-eas  not  a  single  clause  of  it  is  thus  applied.  One  clause  is 
a})plied  to  the  leading  Unitai-ians  in  this  country;  another  to  cler- 
gymen whom  Mr.  Oelsham  rej)reliended  so  severely  for  their  cow- 
ardice; Hiijther  to  those,  who  wei'e  im[)licated  in  Mr.  Wells's  re(). 
i-esentation;  and  the  r(  iiiaining  clause  was  not  applied  by  us  at  all, 
but  was  left  as  a  mere  gt'iieral  observation,  of  which  the  truth  was 
so  evident  that  it  could  not  l)e  deiiied. 

We  siiall  leave  this  subject  after  noticing  a  circunistance,  which 
ISli:  Channing  cannot  ])retend  to  Justify.  It  is  this.  Tliough  he 
brought  against  us  a  charg<^  of  having  misrjuctted  a  senteiice  from 
Mi-.  Wells's  letter,  he  entirely  omitted  to  inform  his  readers,  that 
we  had  published  the  ivholt  ojihat  letter,  in  a  preceding  part  of  our 
review,  \\  here  the  sentence  in  qiustion  was  accui'ately  gi\  en.  I'his 
is  a  fact  which  his  readers  ought  1;()  ha\e  known;  I)ut  which,  as  he 
jnusthe  aware,  many  of  liicm  never  would  know,  unless  he  informed 
then:  of  it.  If  we  had  eired,  in  the  case  alleged,  (Ujr  readers  had 
am}ile  means  of  detecting  the  error;  indeed  an  attentive  reader 
could  not  help  detecting  it;  and  this  circumstance  would  afford  a 
sti-ong  pi-esumption,  that  we  had  not  eri'ed  intoitionallj  .  IJut  Mr. 
C.  inJlames  tiie  minds  of  his  readers  with  the  (barge,  that  we  had 
wilfully  and  maliciously  misfjuoted  a  certain  passage;  while  he  for- 
gets to  tell  them,  Diat  we  had  previously  quoted  th.e  same  passage 
accurately;  (which  is  more  than //e  was  able  to  do;)  and  that  we 
liad  (pioted  it  not  b}'  itself  merely, — but  with  its  w  hole  context. 
Thus  |)rone  is  ^li'.  C  to  bi-ing  forward  infiamniatoiy  and  exagger- 
ated charges,  w  ithout  tJu"  slightest  support  for  them;  and  thus  for- 
getiu!  of  the  plainest  demands  of  justice. 

The  only  remaining  grand  tojuc,  on  which  Mr.  Channing  dwells, 
for  the  pur))ose  of  suitstantiating  the  charge  of  falsehood,  is  ex- 
j)ressed  by  him  as  follows:  '•The  Review  asserts,  that  these  minis- 
ters and  liberal  Christians  [i.e.  the  ministers  of  Boston  and  i!s  vicinity 
and  the  great  body  of  lib<'i'al  Christians]  are  guilty  of  hypocritical 
conc«'almentol"their  sentiments,  and  i)eha\e  iii  a  base,  cowardly  and 
hypocritical  manner.*'  ]).  5.  JSow  we  have  .showij  at  large,  under 
a  ])receding  head,  that  we  made  no  assertion  at  all,  concei-ning  the 
ministers  of  Boston  generally,  nor  concerning  the  ministers  of  the 
Aicinity  geneially,  nor  concerning  the  great  body  of  libeial  Chiis- 
tians.  It  did  not  then  occur  to  us,  that  Mi'.  Channing  had  e.v- 
]-)lai!ied  himself,  on  that  subject,  in  his  Ileruurks  on  Dr.  ^^'orccs-' 


Review  of  the   UnitariaK  Controversy.  i? 

ter's  First  Lrttcr.  His  explanation  is  in  these  wovflr):  <«It  is  true, 
tliat  this  passage  may  be  understood  as  cjiarging  tiie  Review  witli 
asserting,  that  all  the  minisiers  of  Boston  of  all  denominations  are 
Unitarians  ol"  Mr.  BelsJiani's  school.  1  ouglit  to  iiave  said,  that 
the  Review  maintains — that  the  great  hody  of  liberal  ministers  in 
Boston  ajid  its  vicinity,  and  of  liberal  ('hristians,  are  Unitarians, 
in  Mr.  Belshanrs  sense  of  the  word.**  p.  5.  And  of  couise,  Mr. 
Channing,  after  this  explanation,  is  to  he  considered  as  liaving 
charged  us  with  asserting,  that  "the  great  body  of  liberal  minis- 
ters in  Boston  and  its  vicinity,  and  of  liberal  Christians,  are  guilty 
of  hypocritical  concealment  of  their  sentiments,  and  behave  in  a 
base,  cowardly  and  hypocritical  mainier.''  No  such  assertion 
was  ever  made  l)y  us.  We  made  no  sweeping  declaration  concern- 
ing 'the  great  body  of  liberal  ministers  iji  Boston  and  its  vicinity.' 
AVc  never  mentioned  the  great  body  of  liberal  X!hristians.  We  an- 
imadverted, indeed,  with  some  severity,  on  the  concealment,  Miiich 
had  been  practised  by  the  leading  Unitarians  in  tliis  country;  that 
is,  by  a  majority  of  these  leading  Unitarians;  and  from  the  repre- 
sentations of  Mr,  Belsham,  Dr.  Freeman,  and  Mr.  Wells,  we  cen- 
sured what  these  three  gentlemen  evidently  considered  as  a  tempo- 
rizing policy.  Wc  supposed  the  numlK'r  of  leading  Unitarians  to 
be  not  very  large;  and  as  to  tlie  great  body  of  liberal  Christians, 
or  even  tlie  great  body  of  the  liberal  party  in  Massachusetts,  there 
is  nothing  said  in  our  Review,  which  can  be  tortured  into 
a  charge  of  concealment,  or  hypocrisy,  on  tlicir  part.  In 
^lio^'t,  nothing  is  said  about  them,  in  reference  to  tlie  subject  of 
concealment  or  hypocrisy.  So  grossly  inaccurate  was  Mr.  Chan- 
ning, even  after  the  errors  of  his  Letter  had  been  exposed.  His 
inaccuracy  unfortunately  happens  to  be  of  a  very  mischievous  kind; 
for  many  of  his  readers  would  suppose,  if  they  relied  uj)on  his 
statement,  that  we  had  called  them  artful  In  pocrites,  and  would  be 
higldy  exasperated,  not  only  against  as,  but  against  Di*.  AVorces- 
ter  and  all  who  think  as  vv«  do;  wiicn  in  fact  we  had  said  nothing 
about  them,  and  had  not  even  alluded  to  thejn  in  terms  of  reprehen 
sion.  AVe  therefore  propose  to  Mr.  Channing  ami  his  advocates 
the  following  question,  which  they  arc  requested  to  ponder  an<l 
answer'-at  their  leisure:  In  what  page  or  pages  of  our  Re^  iew  do 
we  assert,  that  "the  great  body  of  liberal  Cin-istians  are  guilty  of 
hypoci'itical  concealment  of  their  sentiments,  and  behave  in  a  base, 
cowardly  and  hypocritical  manner?"  if  they  caniiot  find  any 
thing,  (as  they  most  assuredly  cannot.)  wliich  hears  even  a  remote 
likeness  to  this  statement,  let  them  confess  tiiat  the  charge  is  alto- 
gether  unfounded;  and  let  Mr.  Cha.nnijig,  before  he  attempts  to 
write  contiof/ci-sy  again,  learn  to  state  things  as  they  are. 

AN'e  will  now  repexit  in  substance  what  avc  did  say,  on  the  topic 
under  consideration. 

1.  AVc  represented  t^.ie  'defection  from  orthodoxy,'  in  Boston  and 
the  vicinity,  as  havii^g 'extended  xinQX'C  silently  and  covertl'.}.-  p.  241. 
This  is  uiKleniably  true,  and  is  warranted  by  the  testimony  of  D;-. 
Freeman, 

2.  We  declared  it  to  be  an  *arti£ve  practised  systematically  by 
a  majorily  of  the  clergymen,  "d'hc  haxc  kd  the  ivatj  in  this  apo.sta- 


28  Review  of  the   Unitarian  Controversy. 

sy,  to  inculcate  the  opinion,  that  they  did  not  differ  wnterially  from 
their  clerical  birthren  throughout  the  country.'  p.  942.  This  is 
notoriously  the  fact.  W'c  produced  a  case  to  tlic  purpose,  and  re- 
lated seveial  circumstances  of  it  particularly,  as  an  example  of 
V  hat  iuis  oiten  taken  place.  It  is  remarkable,  that  tliou.i^h  Mr. 
C.  does  not  deny  that  these  circumstances  were  related  w  itii  pi'r- 
foct  accuracy;  thou4>;li  he  probably  kiiows  that  they  were  thus  re- 
lated; he  is  notwitiistau'liiii;  in  vcit  ill  humor  witii  us,  for  havini^ 
produced  a  fact  to  verily  our  astjer'ion.  Tliis  is  hard  indeed.  If 
we  make  any  serious  allei^ation  against  the  liberal  pai-ty,  and  do 
not  produce  some  evidence  in  supp!)rt  of  it,  the  truth  of  the  allega- 
tion is  vehemently  denied,  if,  foreseeing  this  result,  we  biing  for- 
wai'd  the  declarations  of  leading  membei's  of  the  libei'al  party;  de- 
clarations made  with  great  earnestness,  and  on  a  public  orcusionj 
we  are  accused  of  the  "degrading  practice  of  publishing  what  peo- 
ple say.'-*  Thus,  when  we  charged  the  liberal  party  witli  having 
patronized  and  circulated  the  Improved  Version,  the  citaige  was 
very  angrily  repelled.  We  immediately  produced  a  varitty  of 
facts,  completely  sufiicient,  in  our  opinion,  to  support  the  charge. 
The  facts  were  not,  and  could  not  he,  denied.  Tiiey  came  into  our 
possession  unsought.  And  yet  for  stating  incoTitrovertible  facts,  to 
refute  a  vehement  cluu-ge  of  false.'iood  and  calumny,  we  were  at- 
tacked with  nothing  but  sneers.  We  were  represented  as  going 
about  for  the  jjurpose  of  collecting  gossijnng  stories.  This  disin- 
geimous  example  Mr.  (J.  has  been  willing  to  imitate.  , 

We  could  state  several  facts  in  support  of  w hat  we  alleged  as  t() 
the  artifcCf  which  has  been  practised.  We  will  state  one.  Mr. 
Channijig  may  call  it  a  'vstory,"  if  he  pleases^  it  is  at  any  rate  the 
truth.  When  Mr.  Codman  was  ])ersecuted,  because  he  wouhl  m)t 
pledge  himself  to  exchange  minjstei'ial  labors  with  certain  mem- 
bers of  the  liberal  party,  it  was  a  comnum  saying  in  that  part}  ,  that 
he  was  not  authorized  to  suppose  there  was  any  great  dilferejice  of 
opinion  between  him  and  his  clerical  neighbois;  and  that  they  all 
preached  "those  great  truths  and  precepts,"  (to  use  the  words  of 
Mr.  C.)  "about  which  tliereis  little  contention." 

If  it  should  be  said,  that  our  crime  lies  in  caiiing  this  conduct  by 
the  name  of  artifice,  wheji  it  is  no  more  than  a  charitable  o])inion 
respecting  the  differences  among  professed  Christians:  ami  w  hen 
those,  who  expiTss  such  an  opinion,  do  in  faet  honestly  tiiiidv  the 
diffeiences  between  them  and  tlie  orthodox  to  be  comparatively  un- 
important; we  answer:  Fii'st;  the  declaration,  that  the  ])ersons  in 
question  do  not  differ  matcridltij  from  the  orthodox,  produces  a  very 
different  ef^Qvi  from  that  whicli  woiild  be  produced  l)y  a  fiank  and 
full  statement  of  the  poiids  of  diftej-em-e.  This  the  liberal  party 
know  pei'fectly  well.  Hence  their  attachment  to  general  and  am- 
biguous terms.  Sccojuily;  t!ie«e  very  peivsons  show,  in  nniny  in- 
stances, that  they  tiiemselves  think  these  differences  to  I)e  vastly  im- 
portant. Thirdly;  whenever  the  liberal  parly,  in  this  or  any  other 
country,  have  deemed  itexj)e(lientor  necessary  tf)  avow  their  opin- 
ions openly,  they  insist  strenuously  on  the  amazing  value  of  their 

*   -Mi*.  Chr.nnitig's  Letter,  p.  £6 


Jieview  of  tlie  Unif avian  Controversy.  29 

improvements  in  theology.     We  feel  justified,  therefore,  in  having 
used  the  word  artifice. 

S.  We  g;ive  it  as  our  judgment,  tliat  the  conduct  of  the  congre- 
ijjation  at  the  Stone  Cliapei,  "and  of  their  minister,  in  coming  out 
openly,  and  avowing  their  sentiments  to  the  world,  is  vastly  prefer- 
able to  a  hypocritical  concealment  of  them."  j).  251.  Wcthen  in- 
timated, that  'other  societies  had  not  followed  their  example." 
That  we  wei-e  i-ight  in  this  intimation  Mr.  >^  ells  i)lain!y  testifies. 

4.  A\'e  said,  that  Mr.  iJelsham's  ol)ject.  in  j)uijlisliing  a  certain 
letter,  "was,  douhtles>i,  to  chastise  the  Boston  clergy  for  their  cow- 
ardice in  concealing  tlieir  religious  opinions."  p.  2b0.  That  such 
^vas  Mr.  Belsiiam's  object,  no  i)ei-son  who  reads  that  letter,  and 
Mr.  Belsham's  remarks  upon  it,  can  doubt  lor  a  moment.  If  we 
have  been  cori-cclly  informed,  some  of  the  Boston  clergy  felt  this 
chastisement  very  keenly  before  our  Review  was  written. 

5.  We  intimated,  that  those  'advocates  of  Socinianisui,  who  had 
clajulestinely  crept  into  orthodox  churclies,  by  forbearjjig  to  con- 
tradict the  faith  of  these  churches,  and  had  tiien  moulded  their 
hearers  by  negative  preaching,'  were  chargealde  witli  'cunning  and 
policy;'  that  the  apostles  did  not  act  thus;  and  that  sucli  conduct  is 
f'base  and  hypocritical,"  and  "common  honesty  revolts  at  it."  p. 
260.  The  only  question  here  must  be,  whether  thei-e  have  been 
any  advocates  of  S(>cinianism,  who  have  crept  into  ortlio{h>x 
churclies  in  the  manner  her-  desci'ibed.  If  there  have  been,  we 
contend  that  t!ie  language,  which  we  used,  is  not  uinvarrantably 
severe.  lu  that  case,  we  have  nothiii.'^  to  retract,  nor  to  repent  of. 
We  frankly  avow,  tiiat  we  believe  tiierc  have  been  such  persons. 
Our  ])roofs  shall  appear  presently. 

6.  We  said,  "tlie  idea  that  a  minister  believes  the  truths  of  tiie 
fiospel  to  be  of  infinite  imjxu'tance,  ami  still  conceals  tiiem,  is  in- 
compatible eitiicr  with  fidelity  or  integrity."  p.  9Gl.  Tiiis  was  a 
general  observation,  foi*  tiu'  correctness  of  which  we  appeal  to  the 
consciences  of  Lnitaj'ians  themselves. 

We  are  not  backward  to  admit,  that  the  ])assages,  to  which  Me 
have  now  referred,  contain  language  of  strong  censure  and  severe 
reju'ehcnsion.  Let  us  look  a  little  at  the  documents  which  called 
forth  this  reprehension. 

Dr.  Freeman,  altei' statin.";*  in  his  letter  to  Mr.  Lindsey,  that  'the 
Unitarian  doctrine  was  upon  the  increase,'  and  that  'he  was  ac- 
quainted with  a  number  of  ministers,  who  avowed  and  publicly 
preached  it,'  g'oes  on  to  say;  "I'here  areotlicrs  more  caiiiioxs,  who 
content  themselves  with  leading  tficir  hearers,  by  a  couise  of  ration- 
al but  prudent  sermons,  gradunily  and  inscmihly  to  cnd)racc  it. 
Thougii  tliis  latter  m-ide  is  not  what  I  entirely  ajiprove.  yet  it  pro- 
duces good  effects.  For  the  people  are  thus  kept  out  of  the  reach 
of  false  opinions,  and  are  prepared  foi*  the  impressions  wliich  will 
be  made  on  tliem  by  more  hold  and  nrdo'f  surccssoi-s,  when  these 
timid  characters  are  remo\cd  off  the  stage."  This  jiassage  we  quo- 
ted, at  p.  252.  Does  it  not  ])Iainly  charge  "these  liyn/fZ  charac- 
ters" v>ith  concealment  of  tlieir  o])inions?  We  gave  great  offence 
by  saying,  that  "many  well-meaning  people  were  led  in  the  dark." 
What  savs  Bi:  F.  about  certain  'morccaidiotis;  ministers,  who  con> 


JO  licvia-j  of  the  Uni:arian  Controversy. 

tented  themselves  with  leading  their  hearers  gradually  and  insensibhj 
to  embrace  Uiiitaiiaiiisni?'  These  cautious  men  were  expressly 
distiiiguislicd  by  him  from  others,  <who  avowed  and  publicly 
preached'  their  sentiments.  It  api)ears,  too,  that  Dr.  Freeman's 
conscience  could  not  approve  of  the  conduct  wJiich  he  describes. 
Though  tliese  men  were  his  friends;  though  they  were  embarl.cd 
in  the  same  cause  with  himself,  and  were  really  promoting  that 
cause;  yet  he  could  not  help  seeing  the  obliquity  of  the  patb,  in 
Avbich  they  were  travelling.  In  short,  Dr.  F.  represents  tliem 
as  being  essentially  different  from  wiiat  their  hearers  supposed  them 
to  be;  as  being  themselves  conscious  of  tbis  difference;  as  opera- 
ting secretly,  by  keeping  what  he  calls  "false  opinions"  from  tbe 
people  of  their  charge;  and  as  being  induced  to  conceal  their  opin- 
ions by  timidibj.  If  Mr.  Channi)!g  thinks  such  conduct  fair,  open, 
and  honorable,  we  must  be  excused  for  forming  and  expressing  a 
very  different  judgment. 

Let  us  now  look  at  Mr.  Wells's  letter,  with  a  particular  refer- 
ence to  the  subject  of  concealment,  i)(  Unitarianism,  this  gentio- 
inan  declares,  that  while  "its  tenets  have  spread  very  extensively 
in  New  England,  he  believes  there  is  only  one  church  professedly 
Unitarian.'  AVhat  a  picture  is  here!  A  yect  has  prevailed  rrrtf 
extensively  in  a  great  country;  and  yet  it  compi'ises  but  a  single 
congregation  of  persons,  who  make  an  open  profession  of  their  (Uic- 
trines.  Volumes  could  not  say  moiv.  jMi-.  (Jhanning  C()nte)ids, 
that  Mr.  AVells  used  the  word  Unitarian  in  its  largest  sense,  as 
comprising  all  who  are  not  Trinitarians;  and  Mr.  Wells  assures 
us,  that  such  was  the  fiu  t.  Of  course,  Mr.  Wells  here  testifies 
most  explicitly,  that  but  one  congregation  in  New-Eiigland  was 
proffssedly  Anti.triniturian;  altliougli  the  sect  had  pre"\  ailed 
very  extensively,  and  altiiough,  as  he  inifnediately  after\\ar<!s  in- 
forms Mr.  Belsham,  Mnost  of  the  Boston  clergy  and  respectable 
laymen  are  Unitarian,'  i.  e.  Aiiti-trinitarian.  Was  there  ever  ^ 
system  of  concealment  more  peifect,  and  more  universal  tliift)  tlijs? 

Again:  Mr.  Wells  declares,  that  'most  of  the  Boston  clerg} , 
and  rej!pe<table  laymen,  do  not  thiidc  it  at  all  necessary  to  conceal 
their  sentiments  on  these  subjects,  but  exj)ress  them  without  tiie 
least  hesitation,  when  ilicy  Judge  it  proper.'  We  remark  here,  Lhat 
;Mr.  Wells  is  obviously  desii-ous  of  gi\ing  liis  correspondent  a  last 
view  of  the  state  of  tinitarianisni  vi  this  country.  He  is  comni::- 
iiicating  information;  he  is  telling  tie^vs.  His  \Qyy  declaration, 
that  the  Unitarians,  clergy  and  laity,  did  not  think  it  necessary  to 
conceal  their  sentiments,  imports  either  that  tliey  had  tJiought  it 
sieccssaiw,  or  that  Mr.  BeJsham  supposed  t!iey  had.  We  believe  it 
imports  both;  for  if  the  Unitarians  had  never  thought  it  necessary 
to  conceal  their  sentiments,  ysliy  does  ^h:  Wells  use  the  present 
tense?  Who  ever  thought,  by  the  way,  of  saying  that  the  orihodox 
do  not  think  it  necessary  to  conceal  their  sentiments?  Who  ever 
supposed  the}  did?  Whether  in  a  majoiity  or  a  minority,  whether 
Mijoying  religious  libeit}'  or  suffering  under  j)ersecution,  they  ha^e 
iievei'  thought  it  nececsary  to  conceal  their  ftenliinents;  but  they 
Iiave  thought  it  necessai'v  to  avow,  to  preacli,  and  to  defend,  tlieir 
sentiments,  ms  the  truth  ol'  God,  under  every  species  of  oblofpiy  wpti 


RevL-xu  of  the  Unitarian  Controversy.  31 

persecution,  and  at  the  hazard  of  their  reputation,  their  personal 
comfort,  and  their  lives.  >Ve  suhuiit  it  to  tiie  reader,  whether 
Mr.  Wells's  expression  does  not  imply  further,  tJiat  tiie  Unitarians 
would  conceal  tlieir  sentiments,  if  tliey  tliought  it  at  ail  necehsaiy. 
But  these  gentlemen  'express  their  scntiuients  without  the  least 
hesitatioJi!'  Wheni^  Indeed,  when  should  tlicy,  but — "when  tuey 
JUDGE  IT  PROPER?"  Very  well.  But  when  do  they  judge  it  pro- 
per? Do  these  Boston  clej-g-y,  of  whom  Mr,  Wells  speaks,  j/K%e  it 
proper  to  express  their  sentiments,  on  the  amazingly  im[)ortant 
subject  of  tiic  Trinity,  from  tiie  pulpit?  Not  they,  if  Mr.  Wells  is 
to  be  believed.  We  speak  of  the  tiuie  when  Mr.  W.'s  letter  was 
written;  i.  e.  March,  1812;  for  he  expressly  states,  that,  excepting 
tlic  Chapel,  «*the  controversy  is  seldom  or  never  introduced  into  the 
pulpit."  Will  it  be  said,  that  Mr.  Wells  means  only,  that  Unitari- 
anism  was  not  discussed  in  the  pulpit  in  a  controvei'sial  manner? 
We  reply,  that  Jje  must  !ia\'e  meant  more  than  this,  for  he  after- 
\vards  says,  that  "the  majority  of  those  wlio  are  Unitarian  are  per- 
haps of  these  sentiments,  without  any  distinct  consciousness  of  being 
S({."  Of  course,  this  majoiity  of  Uidtarians  never  heard  any  thing 
abo^jt  the  subject,  certainly  notliing  clear  and  distinct  on  it,  from 
the  pulpit.  Wc  think  the  inference  altogether  inevitable.  IVople 
have  usually  thought,  that  tiie  pulpit  is  the  place,  whence  a  minis- 
ter's religious  doctrines  ai-e  to  be  learned;  and  the  thought  is  not  un- 
natural. It  is  generally  taken  for  grantee!,  that  the  apostles  de- 
clared '^all  the  counsel  of  God,"  in  tlieir  public  preaching.  But  in 
these  days  of  improvement,  a  considerable  number  of  iJerg\mcn 
abstain  utterly  from  introducing  into  the  pulpit  a  subject,  which, 
as  all  admit,  forms  a  most  impoHant  part  of  the  Christian  scheme. 
Do  these  Unitarians  judge  it  proper  to  disclose  their  sentiments 
through  the  medium  of  the  press?  Not  under  their  own  names. 
Mr.  Wells  says,  "if  publications  make  their  appearance  attacking 
Unitarian  sentiments,  they  arecomnsoidy  answered  with  spirit  and 
ability."  But  the  ai>«\sers  here  referred  to  have  always  appeared 
either  in  the  Anthology,  or  the  Repository:  and  if  any  charge  is 
brought  against  the  libei-al  party,  on  account  of  pieces  contained  in 
these  works,  the  very  pieferring  of  such  a  charge  is  resented  as  a 
high  iiuiignity;  and  the  Aiitholog}  and  Repository  are  laid  aside 
witii  as  little  cei-emony,  as  I  hough  they  were  bundles  of  old  alma- 
nacs. If  Me  express  a  convi<;tipn,  that  a  particular  paper  wsls 
written  by  a  certain  individual,  although  it  was  notoriously  and  un- 
deniably written  by  him,  yet  the  vei-y  suggestion  of  such  a  thing  is 
treated  as  though  it  were  a  slander  cast  upon  the  \\riter.  I'r^dy 
the  liberal  party  must  actjuire  n»ore  courage,  or  they  can  never 
expect  to  be  acknowledged  as  the  open,  frank,  and  prosperous  sect, 
which  son^e  of  their  late  writings  would  persuade  us  that  they  are. 
They  must  learn  not  to  be  ashamed  of  their  own  works,  the  fii'st 
moment  these  woi'ks  are  laid  to  their  charge.  In  reference  to  the 
concealment,  which  has  been  practised,  Air.  Wells  says,  "This 
state  of  things  apjicars  so  favorable  to  the  dissemination  of  correct 
sentiments,  that  I  should  perhaps  regret  a  great  degree  of  excitc- 
ntent  in  the  public  mind  upon  these  subjects."     >Ve  believe  that 


32  Revkvj   of  the  Uidtariun  Controversy. 

Mr.  Wills  and  Iiis  pai-ty  have  jud.^cd  w^yy  correctly,  in  supposini^ 
»such  a  state  of  tiiin,;i;s'  to  be  ^lavtri-able  to  tl»e  dissemitiatiou'  oi"  ilieir 
sentiments.  I'liis  concealnient  will  be  loss  easily  practised  hereafter. 
The  public  %vill  see  wiiat  the  event  will  Ik'. 

>Ve  sbail  dismiss  the  subject  of  (•on(eah;ient  liy  a  liasfy  reference 
to  Mr.  Jit'Jshaii).  This  gentleman,  the  histoi'ian  of  Unitai'ianisiu 
m  ISew  Kn.^•land,  the  corresjiondent  and  friend  of  many  individuals 
of  the  liberal  party  in  Boston,  evidently  took  it  for  granted,  that  a 
ssystcm  of  concealment  |)i'evailed  in  triat  j)arty;  a  concealment  which 
disguised  itself  under  the  plausible  names  of  prudence,  candor,  and 
alo\e  of  peace,  but  which  appeared  to  him  nothitig  better  t!)an  a 
cowardly  abandonment  of  the  trutii,  the  result  of  a  miserable  time- 
ser\ing  policy.  This  was  !Mr.  Beisliam's  view  of  the  matter;  and 
it  must  be  confessed,  that  he  had  some  opportunities  of  coming  at 
the  true  state  of  tlie  case.  In  gi^  ing  the  account  of  Mr.  Shcrman*s 
tlisinission,  ho  animadverts,  in  strong  terms,  on  the  inconsistency 
of  the  prudent  council,  as  he  ironically  terms  it.  For  this  account 
we  refer  the  reader  to  p.  £G4.  in  our  Review.  In  his  reflections  on 
Mr.  Abbot's  dismission,  Mr.  lielsham  is  still  more  severe.  "Thus 
again."  sa}  s  he,  "we  see  tiie  sacred  cause  of  Christian  truth,  sacri- 
ficed to  a  mean  and  tcuiporixhig  policy;  and  the  faithfid  champion 
of  truth,  the  amiable,  usefui.  and  beloved  ])astor,  torn  from  his 
weeping  ilo(  k,  and  consigned  to  povert}'  an(i  solitude,  for  the  sake 
of  preserving  a  hollou\  (h'ceitjul,  tenip;)rary  peace.  But  this  can- 
not last  long;  nor  can  such  a  measure  be  approved  by  the  great 
Head  of  tlic  chinTh."  Let  the  liberal  party  look  well  to  this  piece 
of  Unitarian  history.  Let  them  consider,  that  tlie  council, here  de- 
scribed was  a  Liberal  council,  and  that  their  conduct  is  thus  stigma- 
lized  by  a  liberal  historian.  What  did  this  council  sacrihce?  "The 
sacred  cause  of  Christian  ti'uth."  To  what  did  they  sacrifice  it? 
"To  a  MEAX  and  temporizing  policy."  What  else  did  they 
sacrifice?  "I  he  fiiithful  champioji  of  truth."  From  \Nhat  motives? 
"P'or  the  sake  of  preserving  a  iiollow,  deceitful,  temporary  peace," 
How  does  God  regard  such  a  proceeding?  It  cannot  "be  approved 
by  the  great  Head  of  the  church."  Who  says  all  this?  Not  the 
Panoplist  Reviewer,  but  Mr.  Bels!)am.  lict  our  readers  weigh  the 
condemnation  here  pronounced,  and  judge  whether  it  is  not  heavier 
than  any  wiiich  our  Review  contained. 

Again;  Mr.  Belsham,  in  his  conmients  on  a  letter  which  he  had 
received  from  this  country,  goes  upon  the  ])resumption,  that  con- 
cealment was  systematically  practised  by  the  Boston  clergy.  He 
admits,  that  it  (  antjot  be  expected,  "upon  the  common  principles 
of  human  nature,"  that  'a  body  of  clergy,  nursed  in  the  lap  of  ease 
and  afliuence,'  shoidd  make  "an  open  profession  of  unpopulai- 
truth."  "Yet  still."  says  he,  "it  cannot  reasonably  be  hoped,  that 
truth  will  make  a»iy  visible  and  rapid  progress,  till  her  advocates 
rise  above  the/car  of  man,  and  the  love  of  case,  and  are  willing,  with 
the  ajjostles  of  Chi-ist,  and  the  reformers  of  every  age,  to  forsake 
all  and  to  sacrifice  their  dearest  inlerests  in  her  gloi-i!)us  cause." 
Mr.  B.  supposes  himself  to  difter  from  his  Boston  friends,  not  only 


Review  of  the  Unitarian  Controversy.  33 

in  reference  to  the  question  of  duty,  but  on  the  score  of  policy  also, 
lie  thinks,  that  the  open  preaching  of  Unitarianism  would  accelerate 
its  progress  wonderfully.  Mr.  Weils  tliinks  otherwise^  and  we 
are  altogether  of  Mr.  Wells's  opinion.  We  therefore  tliink  it  a 
point  of  immense  importance,  aii  acquisition  of  very  great  value, 
that  many  membci's  of  the  liberal  party  have  been  driven  from  their 
concealment,  and  compelled  to  avow  their  sentiments.  So  far  as 
our  Review  has  been  instrumental  in  producing  this  result,  we  have 
great  reason  to  congratulate  ourselves. 

It  is  curious  to  observe  how  cautious  Mr.  Channing  is  not  to  of- 
fend Mr.  Belsham  by  finding  any  fault  wiLh  his  lepresentations. 
A  book  may  be  published  throughout  Great  Britain,  and  parts  of  it 
may  be  reprinted  and  circulated  throughout  this  country,  wiiich 
parts  contain  severe  animadversions  on  tlie  Unitarians  among  us; 
and  yet  all  this  is  received  with  the  most  exemplary  meekness,  and 
without  a  word  of  contradiction  or  complaint.  The  writer  may 
go  on  to  accuse  prominent  men  in  the  party  of  pursuing  a  mean 
and  temporizing  policy,  and  to  bestow  upon  them  a  variety  of  indig- 
nant and  reproachful  epithets.  All  this  lie  may  do  as  a  friend,  and 
through  anxiety  for  the  cause  in  which  he  and  they  arc  embarked. 
But  wiien  we  simply  repeat  his  charges,  and  rely  upon  the  accura- 
cy of  his  representations,  though  tliey  generally  correspond  with 
all  our  own  knowledge  on  the  subject,  we  are  assailed  in  the  most 
violent  manner,  as  the  basest  of  slaiulerers.  In  regard  to  the 
cliarge  of  concealment  and  hypocrisy,  let  Mr.  Channing  settle  his 
accounts  with  Dr.  Freeman,  Mr.  Wells,  and  Mr.  Belsliam,-  let  hira 
come  forward  to  the  public,  ami  not  fear  to  rejieat  the  words  from 
the  mouths  of  these  gentlemen:  let  him  take  paragraph  by  para- 
grapii,  and  sentence  by  sentence,  and  show,  if  he  can,  that  these 
tliree  witnesses  prove  the  libei'al  paity  to  be  frank,  open,  bold,  and 
conscientious,  in  the  public  avowal  of  their  sentiments;  and  then, 
hut  not  till  then,  let  him  complain  of  our  statements. 

Thus  have  we  examined  all  the  most  important  charges,  which 
Mr.  Channing  brought  against  us.  We  have  stated  the  true  mean- 
ing of  the  offensive  passages  in  our  Review,  and  that  meaning  we 
have  felt  hotli  able  and  willing  to  defend.  As  a  strong  confirma- 
tion of  tiie  positions  which  we  have  taken,  it  may  be  mentioned, 
tiiat  Dr.  Worcester  and  the  Reviewer  in  the  Vermont  Adviser, 
each  examining  tlic  subject  for  himself,  came  to  ti»e  same  result, 
and  completely  vindicated  our  Re\  iew  from  the  charge  of  falsehood 
and  misrepresentation. 

We  now  proceed  to  examine  the  controversy  between  Mr.  Chan- 
ning and  Dr.  Worcester.  It  may  a])pear  to  some  of  our  readers, 
that  we  have  occupied  too  many  pages  with  an  exposure  of  Mr. 
Channing's  unadvised  and  unfourided  charges  against  us.  But  we 
ask  tbem  to  consider,  wlietlior  something  was  not  due  to  our  own 
character,  thus  violently  assailed  by  a  clergyman  of  hi,:^h  standing 
in  his  party,  a  man  who  had  no  small  share  of  reputation  depending 
on  the  validity  of  his  accusath)ns.  We  are  sanguinr  enough  to 
suppose,  also,  that  the  iurther  disclosure  of  the  views,  designs,  and 
5 


34  Revieio  of  the  Unitarian  Cotitroversy. 

character  of  the  liberal  party,  which  the  present  article  has  al- 
i-eady  made,  m  ill  not  be  useless;  and  that  candid  men  cannot  help 
perccivini^,  tliat  all  our  disdosuresconr,  rning  this  party  ha^ehecn 
made  witli  caution,  deliberation,  and  a  sacred  regard  to  truth. 
Our  friends  >vill  also  remeuiber,  that  when  a  complete  answer  is 
attempted,  it  shouhl  be  reiilly  what  it  professes  to  be,  iind  not  a  hur- 
ried discussion;  and  that  false  charges  may  he  made  in  half  a  page, 
or  even  in  half  a  sentence,  which  it  must  take  many  pages  to  re- 
fute particularly  and  effectually.  Should  a  similar  attack  be  inado 
upon  the  Panopli.'-t  hereafter,  it  is  probable  that  a  a  cry  brief  notice 
of  it  will  be  sufficient. 

The  calm  and  disj)assionate  maujier,  in  which  Dr.  Worcester 
examines  the  charge  of  concealment,  is  truly  admirable,  and  must 
have  been  prodigiously  moi'tifying  to  Mr.  C.  and  his  liberal 
friends.  Our  readers  shall  be  favored  with  the  following  speci- 
men. 

"It  does,  however,  appear  to  me  very  clear,  that  Dr.  Freeman,  Mr. 
Wells,  and  Mr.  Belsham  did  snjjpose,  ar.d  that  in  the  documents  on  which 
the  Reviewer  princijially  relies  as  his  vouchers,  they  do  represent,  that  lib- 
eral ministers,  and  other  liberal  gentlemen  have  judged  it  proper,  not  to 
make  ordinarily  a  free  and  fall  disclosuie  of  their  senlinients:  that  they  have 
ni  fact  thought  it  expedient  to  temjxirizc.  Whether,  in  this  opinion  of  you 
and  your  brethren,  tliose  gentlemen  are  correct  or  not,  you  must  have  been 
apprised,  that  tiie  oi)inion  is  not  peculiar  to  tliem,  but  very  extensively  prev- 
alent: prevalent,  not  among  those  only,  wbom  you  would  consider  your  ad- 
versaries, but  also  among  your  friends.  Hinitlreds  and  hundreds  of  times 
have  I  heard  it  uttered  from  various  quartci-s,  with  \-arious  expressions  of 
approbation  and  disapprobation;  and  never,  in  any  debate  or  conversation, 
as  I  recollect,  have  1  heard  the  truth  of  it  denied,  or  called  in  question.  It 
seems  indeed  to  have  been  received  as  an  established,  uncontested  fact,  that 
ministers  cf  the  liberal  class  were  not  accustomed  to  i)e  uin-cser\ed  and  ex- 
plicit in  the  public  avowal  and  declaration  of  their  sentiments.  I  confess  to 
you,  Sir,  that  I  had  so  received  it;  nor  did  I  ever  imagine  that  in  so  receiv- 
ing it,  tiiere  was  any  thing  injuricuis  or  uncharitable:  for  I  did  suppose 
that  you  and  your  liberal  brethren  held  it  as  a  maxim,  founded  upon  rea- 
sons satisfactory  to  your  own  minds,  that  a  degree  of  reserve  and  conceal- 
ment, greater  or  less  according  to  circumstances,  was  prudent,  and  justifia- 
ble, and  praiseworthy.  In  this  supposition  I  have  been  from  time  to  time 
strengthericd,  by  conversations  witii  respectable  hidividuals  of  the  class,  and 
not  a  little  confirmed  by  what  I  have  occasionally  heard  from  the  pulpit.  I 
have  now  in  very  fresh  remembrance  some  sentiments  to  this  effect,  deliver- 
ed in  a  sermon  which  I  heard  at  an  ordination  in  Boston  a  few  months  ago; 
and  in  which  t)ie  preacher  very  distinctly,  and  with  considerable  amplification, 
held  forth  tliat,  though  in  some  places  it  might  be  well,  and  "contribute  to 
the  faith  and  virtue  of  the  people,"  for  a  nnnister  openly  and  plainly  to  de- 
clare his  sentiments,  j  et  in  other  ])laces  it  would  not  be  prudent  or  pi-oper; 
and  in  regard  to  this,  the  gentleman  then  ordained  was  affectionately  and 
earnestly  advised  to  regulate  himself,  according  to  the  hai>its  of  thinking  and 
iccling,  the  i)rejudicesor  tVeedom  fnim  prejudice,  which  he  should  find  to 
prevail  among  his  people."  pp.  17,  IH. 

Dr.  W.  tlien  expresses  his  surprise  at  Mr.  Channing's  denial  of 
(  oncealuu nt,  on  the  part  of  himself  and  his  brelhien.  Tltis  denial, 
however,  is  accounted  for,  on  theassuiuj)lion  of  Mr.  C.  that  he  and 
his  friends  'perpetually  uj'ge  those  great  truths  and  precepts  about 


Review  of  the  Umtarlari  Controversij.  S5 

which  there  is  little  contentioiij*  \vliile,  as  Dr.  W.  alleges,  <they 
studiously  refrain  fi-om  encountering  the  opinions  of  any  of  tlie  va- 
rious denominations  of  Christians,  who  ditter  from  tlicn».'  Dr.  AY. 
then  urges,  with  irresistible  force,  that  according  to  Mr.  Chan- 
ning's  own  account  of  the  matter,  the  liberal  clergy  abstain  from 
expressing  their  opinions  on  'any  of  the  prinuiry,  any  of  the  pecu- 
liar doctrines  and  institutions  of  the  Gospel.'  This  is  enough  to 
settle  the  question  of  concealment  linaily  and  forever. 

Mr.  C.  had  said,  <'to  believe  with  Mr.  Belsham  is  no  crime;'' 
and  yet  Mr.  C  admits  Mr.  Belsham  to  be  in  great  errors.  Fur- 
ther, Mr.  C.  has  said,  in  a  jn-inted  sermon,  that  *hcwas  unwilling 
to  believe  that  infidelity  can  never  be  traced  to  causes,  which  may 
absolve  it  from  guilt.'  \\\  other  vvoi'ds,  infidelity  nniy  be  perfectly 
innocent.  Dr.  W.  appeals  to  Scri})ture  on  this  suhjeci;  and  we 
need  not  say,  that  Mr.  C.'s  position  must  instantly  fall  under  se- 
vere condemnation,  if  Sci'iptnre  is  permitted  to  decide.  Dr.  W. 
then  urges  the  practice  of  the  apostles,  and  tlic  estimation  in  w  hich 
they  held  religious  error,  as  being  totally  diftei-ent  from  the  system 
recommended  by  the  liberal  party  and  their  champion. 

The  third  topic  of  Mr.  Cliaiming's  fletter  is  occupied  with  the 
subject  of  the5ej;a?a/io»,  which  we  had  pressed  upon  the  orthodox. 
We  have  not  been  w  illing  to  consider  this  topic  as  belonging  ex- 
clusively to  ourselves;  and  have  purposely  left  it  to  be  discussed 
as  a  part  of  the  more  general  conti'OA  ersy.     Mr.  Channing  says, 
indeed,  referring  to  our  Review,  that  he  believes  "this  is  the  first 
instance,  in  whicli  Christians  have  been  delil»erately  called  to  deny 
us  [the  Unitarians]  the  Cliristian  name  and  privileges."     It  has 
been  an  involuntary  exclamation,  when  this  pasaage  has  been  read 
|liy  persons  at  a  distance,  "Mr.  Channing  must  be  a  very  ignorant 
man!"     We  answer,  not  so  ignorant  as  he  is  ])assionate  and  un- 
guarded.    It  does  truly  evince  a  most  dejdoralile  inattention  to 
what  is  taking  place,   and   has  always  been  takirig  place  since  the 
Christian  era,  to  say,  that  the  name  and  privileges  of  Christians 
have  never  been  denied  to  Unitarians  of  any  class,  till  our  Review 
set  the  example.     Perliaps  Mr.  C.  would  confine  his  assertion  to 
this  country.     Very  well.     Let  him  look  at  this  country.     Sever- 
al years  ago.  the  General  Association  of  Coimecticut,  a  body  w  hich 
represents  all  the  congregational  clei-gy  in  that  state,  resolved,  that 
no  clergyman  ought  to  exchange  ministerial  labors  with  any  man, 
claiming  to  be  a  Christian  minister,   if  he  denied  the  Divinity  of 
Christ.     Did  not  the  Aiitliology  complain  of  this  decision?     But 
Mr.  C.  did  not  read  the  Anthology.     Again;  the  General  Assem- 
bly of  tlie  Presbyterian  Church  iji  the  United  States  resolved,  two 
or  three  years  ago,  that  bai)tism,  administered  by  a  Socinian,  was 
null  and  void;  and  tlie  resolution  v^as  taken,  as  a  practical  conse- 
quence of  the  opinion,  that  heretics  of  this  class  are  not  to  be  re- 
ceived as  Christians.     Was  not  this  decision  loudly  complained  of 
by  the  Boston  clergy?  and  was  not  Mr.  C.  one  of  the  complainers? 
It  is  beyond  question  the  fact,  that  the  orthodox  generally  do  con- 
sider many  of  the  clergy,  who  are  members  of  the  liberal  party,  as 


36  Review  of  the  Unitarian  ControveTsij. 

exerting  an  influence  hostile  to  Cliristianity;  as  leading  their  liear- 
ers  away  from  the  truth;  as  depriving  tlie  pious  of  the  great  sources 
of  gratitude  and  consolation,  and  imparting  a  vain  confidence  and 
presumption  to  careless  sinners.  That  all  the  members  of  tlie  party, 
and  all  who  are  claimed  as  belonging  to  it,  exert  precisely  the  same 
kind  of  influence,  nobody  supposes;  but  that  the  general  influence  of 
the  party  is  of  the  unhappy  and  misciiievous  character  just  described 
must  certainly  be  admitted,  if  the  doctrines  of  the  Reformation  arc 
the  doctrines  of  the  Bible.  The  orthodox  have  examined  the  Scrip- 
tures for  themselves,  as  we  presume  they  have  a  right  to  do;  and 
they  are  unwilling  to  give  up  tlie  plain  declarations  of  the  word  of 
God,  the  testimony  of  their  own  consciences,  and  the  result  (jf  all 
their  observation  and  experience,  on  the  lofty  assumptions  of  any 
set  of  men.  They  conceive  the  doctrines  of  the  Trinity,  the  Di- 
vinity of  Christ,  the  entire  depravity  of  man,  regeneration  by  the 
Holy  Spirit,  the  abs(dute  and  universal  government  of  God,  justifi- 
cation by  faith  alone,  the  unalterable  state  of  the  I'ighteous  and  th.e 
wicked  in  the  world  to  conie,  and  many  other  doctrines  connected 
with  these,  to  be  clearly  taught  in  the  Bible.  They  conceive,  also, 
that  these  doctrines  derive  every  possible  confirmation  and  support 
from  the  history  of  the  church  and  the  world,  and  from  all  tiiat 
takes  place  within  and  around  them.  Thus  conceiving,  they  can- 
not but  regard  the  subverters  of  these  doctrines  as  tlie  subverters 
of  the  Gospel,  and  the  prom idga tors  of  another  Gospel,  which,  be- 
ing essentially  difftu'cnt  from  tlie  true  in  all  its  fundamental  articles, 
is  not  to  be  received  as  the  Gospel  of  our  Lord  and  Savior  Jesus 
Christ. 

Mr.  Channing  seems  not  to  know-  how  to  discuss  the  question  of 
separation  on  its  merits;  but  resorts  instantly  to  those  topics,  which 
are  calculated  to  awaken  the  passions  of  his  friends  and  admiiers. 
There  is  scarcely  an  attempt  at  argument,  if  we  except  a  quotation 
from  Dr.  Campbell  on  Heresy,  a  passage  of  which  the  liberal  jiar- 
iy  are  inmioderati'ly  fond.  It  seems  to  contain  the  sum  total  of 
tlieir  learning,  and  their  reasoning,  on  this  subject.  They  have 
published  it,  in  substance  at  least,  several  times.  They  nniy  rest 
assured,  hovsever,  that  Dr.  Campbell's  decision  is  not  calculated  to 
trrrify  any  man,  who  can  read  the  New  Testament,  and  think  for 
liimself.  So  far  as  it  clashes  with  the  practice  of  the  ortho<h>x,  or 
with  the  com  se  recommended  in  our  Review,  it  can  be  easily  refuted. 
We  have  no  I'oom  to  examine  it  here,  but  may  take  up  tlie  subject 
on  some  future  occasion. 

Dr.  Worcester  discusses  the  call  for  separation  with  distinguish- 
ed ability, 

"Itistobelamented,"sayshe,"tliatonasuI)jectofthisseriousand  momentous 
kind,  you  should  have  thought  it  ])r()per  so  entirely  to  dispense  with  argument, 
and  with  all  the  scriptural  considerations  which,  ui  relation  to  this  subject,  so 
forcibly  press  themselves  upon  the  conscience  and  the  heart;  and  to  indulge 
so  freely  in  \-ague  declamation,  poignant  invective,  and  fervid  aj^jjcal  to  pop- 
ular prejudices  and  passions.  I  know  full  well,  and  too  many  know,  that  this 
is  the  way  to  strike  the  minds  of  that  great  majority  of  mankind,  to  whom 
"hought  and  reflection  arc  irksome;  the  method  best  adapted  for  the  support 


Review  of  the  Unitarian  Controversy  oT 

of  a  bad  cause.  I  am  fully  aware  of  your  advantages  in  this  respect.  But, 
Sir,  a  minister  of  Jesus  Christ  should  esteem  it  a  higher  honor  and  a  nobler 
achievement,  to  enlighten  the  understanding  and  corrvct  the  conscience  of  a 
single  individual,  than  to  rouse  the  passions  and  inflame  the  prejudices  of 
thousands. — Declamation  is  always,  for  a  very  obvious  reason,  diflicult  to  an-» 
swer.  Yours  hoAvevcr,  under  the  present  head,  is  evidently  bottomed  on  sev- 
eral ass2im/}tio?ts,  which  I  deem  utterly  inadmissible,  and  some  of  the  princi- 
pal of  which  I  propose  to  consider."    pp.  26,  27. 

The  first  assumption  considered  bvDr.  W.  is  this:  "That  the  points 
of  doctrine,  upon  wiiich  Mr.  C  and  liis  liberal  brethren  (litter  from 
their  opponents,  are  comparatively  small  and  trivial;  not  jmict'cal^ 
but  speculative  merely,  and  such  as  do  not  materially  affect  Chris- 
tian character."  This  assumption  is  shewn  to  be  uttei-ly  unfound- 
ed. The  creed  of  the  higher  classes  of  Unitarians  is  briefly  com- 
pared with  that  of  the  orthodox,  and  proved  to  be  fundamentally 
diflerent;  and  the  difference  clearly  appears  to  be  much  of  a  prac- 
tical nature.  The  scheme  of  Mr.  Belsbam  is  then  considered;  for 
Mr.  Cbanning  had  pleaded  for  Mr.  Belsbam  with  no  less  confidence 
than  for  himself.  This  scheme  is  represented  as  "another  Gospel" 
than  tiiat,  which  Paid  preached;  or  at  any  rate,  as  a  diverse  Gos- 
pel from  that  which  the  orthodox  receive.  If  one  be  true,  the  other 
must  be  false;  so  that  there  can  be  no  foundation  for  communion 
bet^^  een  the  adherents  to  these  totally  dif!erent  systems. 

The  second  assumption,  which  Dr.  Worcester  examines,  is. 
"That  every  separation  between  professed  Christians  is  unjustifi- 
able; a  criminal  schism,  the  guilt  of  which  is  chargeable  upon  those 
who  insist  upon  it  as  requisite."  ]).  29.  The  nature  of  scliism  is 
here  inquired  into;  and  the  discussion  of  this  topic  closes  with  the 
two  following'  paragraphs. 

"How,  indeed,  is  the  fellowship  for  which  you  plead  to  be  maintained^ 
Upon  this  point  you  and  your  liberal  brethren  have  taken  care  that  we  should 
be  pretty  fully  informed.  The  orthodox  churches  must  give  up  their  creeds 
and  covenants,  their  Psalms  and  Hymns  and  Doxologies;  must  cease  to  insist 
on,  as  important,  the  great  doctrines  which  they  now  hold  to  be  fundanicn- 
tal  and  essential  to  the  Christian  faith;  must  exclude  from  their  pulpits  all 
mysterious  and  controverted  doctrines, — all  that  are  not  included  in  what  is 
fashionably  called  liberal  or  rational  Christianity;  mrst  consent  in  a  word,  to 
have  their  preaching  and  worship  conducted  on  such  principles,  and  in  such 
a  manner,  as  will  not  disturb  the  minds  of  liberal  Christians,  or  Unitarians 
of  any  class! — Is  not  this.  Sir,  precisely  the  way  most  distinctly  marked  out, 
and  most  strenuously  insisted  on,  in  your  periodical  publications,  in  your  or- 
dination sermons,  and  in  all  your  discourses  and  con\ersatious  on  this  sub- 
ject? If  the  orthodox  ministers  and  churches  will  only  consent  to  all  this,  the 
thing  is  done;  all  will  be  love,  and  peace,  and  fellowship.  That  is,  if  they 
will  consent  to  vield  up  as  unscriptural  or  unimportant  the  doctnnes  of  faitii 
and  the  principles  of  worsliip,  which  they  now  hold  most  essential  to  Chris- 
tian character,  devotion,  and  practice, — to  hold  it  "no  crime  to  believe  as 
Mr.  Belsham  believes,"  and,  to  worship  as  he  worships;  and  thus  cease  to 
be  orthodox,  or  in  any  lespect  materially  difierent  from  those  called  liberal 
Christians;  all  the  difficulty  will  be  removed,  and  tlie  way  will  be  open  and 
easy  for  an  esta!)lished  and  permanent  fellowship  between  them  and  Uni- 
tarians of  all  degrees. — Yes,  Sir:  and  if  Unitarians  would  cease  to  be  Unita- 
rians, and  become  orthodox  Christians,  the  way  would  be  equally  unob 
structcd. 


38  "    Review  0/  the  Unitarian  Controversy, 

"But  here  lies  the  difficulty.  The  orthodox  ministers  and  churches  will  not 
consent  thus  to  yield  up  their  faith  and  their  worship:  and  from  the  earnest 
and  abundant  labor  i..\d  pains  which  you  and  your  liberal  brethren  have 
employed,  to  bring  them  to  these  terms,  it  is  manifest  that,  unless  tliey  will 
consent,  you  do  not  yourselves  suppose  there  can  be  fellowsliip  between  you 
and  them.  Because  they  do  not  consent,  you  contiiuially  charge  them  witli 
being  bigoted,  illibei-al,  uncharitable;  and  now  seem  disposed  to  charge  them 
even  with  schism  and  heresy.  But,  Sir,  if  on  account  of  their  steadfast  ad- 
herence to  their  faith  and  worship  a  separation  and  non-fellowship  ensue, 
does  it  not  deeply  concern  you,  as  well  as  them,  very  seriously  to  consider  on 
which  side  the  guilt  will  lie?  Unquestionably,  notwithstanding  any  thing  wliich 
you  have  said  of  your  own,  or  quoted  from  Dr.  Campbell,  it  must  lie  on  that 
side,  which  the  Redeemer  and  King  of  Zion  shall  judge  to  have  removed  it- 
self from  the  foundation  of  the  apostles  and  propiiets."    pp.  30,  31. 

The  sentence,  with  which  this  passage  concludes,  is  well  worthy 
«f  being  considered  by  Mr.  C.  a)Kl  by  all  latitudinarians.  The 
question,  <'Uhat  is  schism?*'  will  be  decided,  not  by  a  majority  ot* 
votes;  not  by  men  of  any  class  or  character;  particidarly  not  by 
men,  who  rely  on  tbeir  own  reason  as  sufficient  to  direct  them  in 
the  way  to  heaven,  and  who  seem  to  take  great  credit  to  themselves 
for  kindness,  when  they  make  the  path  of  lifeso  bro.id,  that  nearly 
all  may  fancy  themselves  travelling  in  it:  but  tbis  momentous  ques- 
tion will  be  decided,  according  to  tlie  immutable  word  of  God,  with- 
out giving  up  one  iota  to  the  plausible  declamation,  or  earnest 
wishes,  of  self-deceivers.  How  idle,  then,  is  it,  bow  arrogant,  bow 
presumptuous,  to  attenipt  to  settle  such  a  question,  by  a  clamorous 
appeal  to  the  expectations  and  hopes,  the  wishes  and  prejudices,  of 
a  narrow  circle  of  persons,  who  may  choose  to  call  tliemselves  lib- 
eral and  enliglitened.  The  only  rational  and  scriptural  way  of  ex- 
amining any  subject,  which  relates  to  the  great  doctrines  and  <\\i 
ties  of  the  Bible,  is  by  a  sober  appeal  to  the  Bible  itself.  We  ad- 
mire a  passage  quoted  from  Kirwan's  Sermons,  in  the  review  of 
that  work  by  the  Christian  Observer.  "But  in  the  midst  of  tins 
scene  of  continual  revolution,  the  Scriptures  remain  unchangeable 
as  the  Source  from  which  tbey  sprung.  Such  as  the  hrst  Cbris- 
tians  received  and  understood  tJiem,  such  are  they  at  this  hour;  and 
such  will  tiiey  be  when  the  heavens  and  the  eattli  ha^e  ])assed 
away.  Neither  tbe  fore  e  nor  corruption  of  times  can  lender  them 
more  austere  or  more  indulgent,'' 

The  last  assumption,  which  Dr  W.  takes  up,  is  this:  <*That  it 
can  be  only  from  a  bigoted,  uncharitable,  and  malignant  spirit, — 
a  "proud,  censorious,  and  overbearing  temper,"  that  a  separation 
can  be  proposed."  p.  31.  Here  Dr.  W.  remarks,  tbat  Mr.  C.  is  di- 
rectly at  \^riance  \\  ith  Mr.  Belsliam  and  others  of  the  same  party, 
w  ho  loudly  demaiid  a  separation.  He  then  exposes  the  abuse  of  the 
word  cluuity.  the  so])bis(ry  to  which  this  abuse  leads,  and  advances 
to  tills  question:  "AVOuld  it  conduce  more  to  the  promotion  of  truth 
for  tbe  believers  '\u  the  true  Gospel  to  hold  fellowship  with  tbe  be- 
lievers in  anotliej"  Gospel,  than  to  separate  from  them?"  It  will  not 
be  easy  for  Mr.  C.  or  any  other  man  to  answer  tlie  reasoning  on 
this  topic.  If  an  answer  should  be  attempted,  we  recommend  that 
the  first  point  to  be  established  should  be  this;  That  it  is  impossible 


Revieiv  of  the  iTnilarian  Controversy.  S9 

for  any  man  wlio  says  lie  is  a  Christian,  and  appears  to  lead  a  mor- 
al life,  to  embrace  fundamental  errors.  When  this  point  shall  be 
clearly  established,  it  will  follow,  that  a  larj^e  part  of  the  New- 
Testament  is  mimeanini^,  unrcasojiahle,  and  of  no  authority  what- 
ever. At  this  stage,  in  the  course  of  their  descent,  Mr.  Belshain 
aiid  his  particular  friends  have  long  since  arrived.  When  the  New 
'Testament  is  arraigned,  tried,  condemned,  and  rejected  by  such 
men,  they  may  easily  imagine  themselves  to  have  pi'oved  any 
thing,  which  may  be  flattering  to  their  pride,  or  grateful  to  tlieii- 
feelings.  , 

Dr.  W.  closes  the  discussion  of  this  topic  with  the  following  pa- 
thetic  expressions. 

"In  the  mean  time,  Charity,  heaven-born  Charity,  must  be  alloivcd  to  weep 
and  lament  over  the  inroads  of  error  and  the  desolations  of  Zion.  Yes,  Sir, 
charmed  not  at  all  witli  the  so  loudly  chaunted  praises  of  increased  "light," 
—abashed  not  at  all  by  the  disdainful  sneers  at  imputed  fanaticism, — she  will 
weep — that  her  adored  Lord  is  denied  his  divine  honors,  in  tlie  beloved  city 
of  our  solemnities,  where  our  fathers  saw  his  glory,  and  delighted  to  celebrate 
his  wonderful  works  of  love  and  mercy."     p.  jj. 

Mr.  Clianning  did  not  think  it  proper  to  be  silent  on  the  appear- 
ance of  Dr.  Worcester's  First  Letter.  The  flauie,  which  his  own 
letter  to  Mr.  Thacher  liad  kindled,  was  deadened,  if  not  entii-cly 
quenched,  by  the  flood  of  reasoning  and  eloquence  so  readily  poured 
forth.  It  would  not  do  to  be  silent.  Sometliing  must  be  said.  But 
Ave  tliink  most  attentive  readers  will  be  convinced,  tliat  Mr.  C.  be- 
gun his  Remarks  w  ith  a  mortifying  consciousness  of  inferiority  to 
his  opponent;  a  consciousness,  w  hich  no  reasonable  man  will  con- 
demn him  for  feeling.  As  he  advances  in  his  discussion,  he  writes 
with  fluency  and  animation,  though  with  a  most  deplorable  deficien- 
cy of  argument.  Not  one  of  tlie  great  points  of  Dr.  Worcester's 
Letter  is  taken  up  carefully,  and  examined  leisurely,  and  with  a 
view  to  produce  conviction.  The  utmost  that  Mr.  C.  appears  to 
have  aimed. at,  was,  to  escape  without  disgrace  from  the  contest. 
Two  apologies  may  be  made  for  him.  One  is,  that  Dr.  Worcester's 
Letter  could  not  be  answei-ed,  as  such  a  production  should  be,  (even 
on  the  supposition  that  its  main  positions  were  capable  of  being- 
answered,)  in  a  hasty  i)amphlet,  designed  to  make  a  popular  im- 
pression. The  other  is,  that  Mr.  C.  is  most  eminently  unfitted  to 
become  a  controversial  writer.  He  wants  the  patience,  the  accu- 
racy, the  coolness,  the  sagacity,  the  powei'S  of  discrimination, 
Avhich  are  indispc^nsable  to  the  able  management  of  a  controversy. 
On  this  subject,  we  suppose  there  is  but  one  opinion,  among  those 
who  are  qualified  to  judge,  whether  friends  or  opposei-s. 

The  great  points  of  Dr.  W.'s  Letter  were,  as  our  readers  have 
seen,  a  Vindication  of  our  Review  from  the  charge  of  falsehood;  an 
examination  of  Mr.  C.'s  declaration,  that  to  believe  in  error  is  no 
Clime;  an  exposure  of  the  concealment  i)ractised  by  the  liberal  party; 
and  a  detection  of  the  various  assumptions,  which  had  aftorded  Mr. 
C.  topics  of  such  fervid  declamation.  As  to  the  vindication  of  our 
Review,  Mr.  C.  confesses  that  he  had  fallen  into  a  slight  inaccura- 


40  Review  of  the  Unitarian  Controversy. 

cy;  but  repeats  substantially  tbe  same  cliarges  as  before^  chai-ges 
which  we  luivc  shewn  to  be  unfoiiiuied.  In  one  thing  we  cordially 
THiite  wi-h  hiinj  that  is,  in  referring  the  reader  to  the  Review  itselfc 
As  to  the  other  points,  not  one  of  them  is  fairly  met.  Wc  will  give 
a  few  specimens  of  Mr.  C.'s  entire  failure,  to  say  the  least,  on 
subjects  of  very  great  consequence.     Dr.  Worcester  inquires, 

"Is  not  Mr.  Btlsham's  Gospel,  as  set  forth  in  his  crccCi,  c7iother  Gospel, 
than  that  which  Paul  preached?  If  you  are  not  willing  to  admit  this;  vet  sure- 
ly you  cannot  hesitate  a  moment  tf)  admit,  that  it  is  another,  than  that  which 
is  held  by  orthodox  Christians, — which  is  pi^eaclied  by  orthodox  ministers: — 
essentially  different  ia  every  particular  from  the  foundation  to  the  top  stone. 
One  or  the  other  of  these  schemes,  tlien,  must  be  wliat  St.  Paul  denominates 
"another  Gospel,"  and  against  which,  and  its  abettors,  he  solemnly  pronoun- 
ces his  apostolic  anathema.  The  leading  doctrines  of  Mohammed  are  not 
iTiore  diverse  from  the  orthodox  views  of  Christianity,  than  are  those  which 
you  would  have  us  hold  in  our  IvUowship.  The  followers  of  Mohammed  be- 
lieve in  Jesus  Clirist  as  a  good  man,  and  a  great  prophet;  and  are  accus- 
tomed to  regard  him,  I  believe,  with  as  high  veneration,  as  are  the  lower 
Unitarians."    pp.  28,  29. 

In  the  passage  here  alluded  to,  St.  I*aul  says,  *'Though  we,  or 
an  angel  fi-ora  heaven,  })reach  any  other  Gospel  unto  you,  than  that 
which  we  have  preached  unto  you,  let  iiim  be  accursed.  As  we  said 
before,  so  say  I  now  again,  if  any  man  [any  one,  whether  man, 
or  celestial  spirit]  preach  any  other  Gospel  unto  you,  than  that  ye 
have  received,  let  liim  be  accursed."  It  has  been  the  fashion  with 
writers  of  the  liberal  party  to  soften,  and  explain  away,  eveiy 
scriptural  expression,  which  seems  harsh  to  their  ears.  But  the 
mildest  interpretation,  which  we  remember  to  have  seen,  of  the 
phrase,  let  Mm  be  accurseiU  is  this;  '<let  him  be  separated  from  youj 
bold  no  communion  witli  him;  acknowledge  him  not  as  a  Christian 
teacher,  or  a  Cin-istian  man."  We  have,  tlien,  an  apostolical  com- 
mand to  withhold  conununion  from  those  who  teach  "another  Gos- 
pel." How  does  jMr.  C.  interpret  the  passage?  He  avoids  any  di- 
i-ect  notice  of  it,  though  Dr.  Worcester  had  formally  cited  it,  in  a 
preceding  page.  But  the  substance  of  what  Mr.  C.  has  to  say  on 
this  subject,  is  contained  in  the  following  sentences: 

"We  do  not  pass  sentence  like  apostles  on  many  sulojects  of  controversy 
among  Christians,  for  tliis  very  plain  reason — that  we  are  not  apostles.  We 
nre,  what  we  lal)or  never  to  forget,  uninspired  and  fallible  men;  and  we  are 
apt  to  distrust  ourselves,  when  persons  of  intelligence  and  piety,  see  cause  to 
differ  from  us  in  the  interpretation  of  Scriptui-e.  We  dare  not  preach  like 
apostles,  on  points  which  have  perplexed  and  divided  men  of  the  pi'ofound- 
est  thought  and  the  purest  lives;  and  we  know  from  the  genius  and  leading 
principles  of  Christianity,  that  these  points  are  not,  and  cannot  be,  essential 
to  salvation."     pp.  11,  12. 

What  is  this  to  the  purpose  of  rejecting  those,  »who  preach  anoth- 
•M*  Gospel?  Di-.  W.  did  not  say,  tliat  ministers  at  the  })resent  day 
are  apostles;  nor  did  he  urge  any  man  to  form  new  rules  for  the 
government  of  the  church,  and  deliver  them  with  the  authority  of 
an  apostle.  All  he  insisted  on  was,  that  Christians  should  obey  the 
plain  and  express    diiections  of  one  who  7vas  an  apostle,  who 


Review  of  the  Uiiitarian  Controversy .  41 

wrote  under  the  influence  of  divine  inspiration,  and  who  delivered 
an  authoritative  rule  of  conduct  lor  tlie  cliurcli  in  every  age.  We 
do  not  hesitate  to  say,  that  the  turn  which  Mr.  Channing  attempt- 
ed to  give  to  this  subject  is  one  of  the  most  miserable  suhterfuges, 
to  which  a  vanquished  and  forlorn  disputant  ever  had  recourse.  St. 
Paul  was  not  informing  the  churches  of  Galatia  what  he  was  about 
to  do,  or  what  iie  had  done,  in  the  execution  of  his  apostolical  com- 
mission, and  under  tlie  guidance  of  tiic  Holy  Spirit.  He  com- 
manded thtm  what  to  do,  in  the  exei-cise  of  a  sound  discretion  and 
with  a  pure  conscience;  and  through  tliem  he  has  commanded 
Christians  of  the  present  day  what  to  do,  in  reference  to  any,  who 
subvert  the  Gospel  of  Christ.  Yes,  he  directed  the  plain,  unedu- 
cated Christians  of  Galatia,  and  the  same  class  of  Christians  in 
every  age,  to  reject  in  the  most  decisive  mannei',  every  teacher  of 
another  Gospel.  God  himself  has  tauglit  mankind,  in  this  passage, 
tliat  plain  Christians,  who  have  heartl  the  true  Gospel  clearly 
preached,  are  able  to  distinguish  it  from  any  otiier  Gospel;  that 
they  are  howulthn^  to  distinguish  it;  and  that,  far  from  being  un- 
charitable in  withholding  communion  from  the  teacliers  of  anotlier 
Gospel,  this  is  a  duty  from  which  they  cannot  be  excused.  Mr.  C. 
speaks  of  'points,  on  wliich  men  of  the  profoundest  thought,  and 
the  purest  lives,  are  divided;'  and  whicli  ♦•we  know,"  says  he,  *«are 
not,  and  cannot  be,  essential  to  salvation."  Hvw  does  Mr.  Chan- 
ning  know,  that  none  of  those  points,  'on  whicli  men  of  the  pro- 
foundest thought,  and  the  purest  lives  have  been  divided,  are  essen- 
tial to  salvation?'  What  our  readers  may  think  on  the  subject  we 
know  not,  but  for  ourselves,  we  set  very  liglitly  by  this  knowledge 
of  Mr.  Clianning's.  Before  it  can  be  entitled  to  a  moment's  consider- 
ation, Mr.  C.  must  produce  a  revocation  of  the  Apostle  Paul's  au- 
thority', and  a  substitution  of  his  own;  for  it  would  be  difficult  to 
vStatea  more  absolute  contradiction,  than  that  which  exists  between 
him  and  the  Apostle.  Mr.  Ciiauuiug  would  establish  this  infallible 
rule,  in  determining  what  doctrines  are  non-essential  to  sal- 
vation; viz.  that  every  doctrijie,  concerning  which  men  of  the  pro- 
foundest thought  and  the  ])urest  lives  iiave  been  divided, is  to  be  reck- 
oned in  this  class;  so  tiiat  none  of  these  doctrines,  nor  all  of  them  put 
together, can  constitute  ''another  Gospel."  But  what  saystlie  Apos- 
tle? The  passage  whicli  ^^e  have  quoted,  may  be  paraphrased  thus: 
"Though  I  myself,  commissioned,  received,  and  accredited  as  an  apos- 
tle, should  attempt  to  subvertthe  Gospel  which  I  first  preached  to  you; 
— though  a  celestial  spirit,  from  the  regions  of  light  and  glory,  should 
promulgate  another  Gospel; — you  are  bound  immediately  to  reject, 
as  the  case  may  be,  either  me  or  him,  as  a  false  teacher,  a  repro- 
bate, lying  under  tlie  curse  of  God.  Should  any  one,  I  repeat  the 
weighty  decision; — should  any  one,  whatever  his  character  may 
he;  how  great  so  ever  his  attainments,  his  eloquence,  his  zeal;  how- 
ever pure  and  holy  his  life  may  seem;  though  he  appear  to  unite 
every  desirable  quality,  from  the  intellectual  power  and  dignity  of 
the  highest  seraph  to  the  amiable  docility  of  the  loveliest  child;  vet, 
if  he  preaches  a  different  Gospel  from  that  which  you  have  already 
6 


42  Jlsx'kiv  of  the   Unilarian  Controversy, 

received,  he  is  to  be  rejected  as  a  false  teacher,  a  reprobate,  lyinsf 
under  the  curse  of  God.  And  whether  lie  does  pieach  a  different 
Gospel,  or  not,  yon,  plain  Christians  of  Galatia,  are  to  be  the  judg- 
es, williout  relying  on  his  own  plausible  declarations,  or  those  of 
his  abettors.  The  question  is  decided,  once  for  all,  that  the  doc- 
trines of  CA eiy  future  preacher  of  the  Gospel  are  to  be  judged  of, 
not  by  his  pretensions,  not  by  his  attainments,  not  by  his  apparent 
character,  but  by  the  unerri)ig  rule  of  Divine  Revelation."  Wliat 
becomes  of  Mr.  Channing's  rule  about  men  of  the  profoundest 
thought,  and  the  purest  lives? 

The  same  apontie  says,  in  another  passage,  "Let  God  be  true, 
but  {^\x'Yy  man  a  liar;"  that  is,  as  we  understand  it,  "Let  the  plain 
declarations,  which  God  lias  made  in  Ills  word,  be  received  accord- 
ing to  tJicir  obvious  import;  and  let  every  man,  who  contradicts  these 
dvclaralions,  be  esteemed  as  a  liar,  a  false  teacher,  a  contemner  of 
God's  word,  whatever  the  pretensions  of  such  a  man  may  be,  and 
however  distinguished  he  n)ay  appear  for  integrity,  sincerity,  and 
sanctity."  AVhich  is  to  be  followed,  the  Apostle,  or  Mr.  Chan- 
iiing? 

Happy  is  it  for  mankind,  that  the  rule  which  Mr.  Channing  de- 
livers with  such  confidence,  is  pointedly  condemned  in  the  Bible. 
If  adopted  and  acted  upon,  it  v.'ould  prove  an  ignis  fatuus,  leading 
into  endless  perplexity  and  difficulty,  and  abandoning  its  followers 
in  the  "great  Serbonian  bog"  of  universal  skepticism.  The  direct 
tendency,  if  not  thf>  intention,  of  sanctioning  this  rule  is,  to  per- 
suade the  world,  that  there  can  be  little  danger  in  following,  where 
n)en  of  the  pi-ofoundest  thought  and  the  purest  lives  have  led  the 
\vay.  All  tiiat  a  person  has  to  do,  then,  in  order  to  prove  the  safety 
of  the  doctrines  which  he  holds,  is  to  find  some  man,  who  is  worthy 
to  be  acknowledged  as  a  file-leader.  The  only  inrpiiries  to  be  set- 
tled are  these  two:  Is  the  leader  in  question  a  man  of  profound 
thought?  Is  he  a  man  of  a  jiure  life?  These  questions  once  answer- 
ed in  the  affirmative,  it  is  impossible  that  any  doctrine,  which  this 
leader  rejects,  should  be  essential  to  salvation. 

It  is  not  difficult  for  a  man  to  ar([uire  the  reputation  of  a  deep- 
thi)ikei',  especially  with  his  own  fi)llo\\ei's.  And  when  the  reputa- 
tion is  once  acquired,  it  will  be  perpetuated  in  the  sect,  so  long  .is 
the  spirit  of  propagandi.sm  exists.  It  may  justly  be  admitted,  in- 
deed, that  the  founders  of  most  sects  have  been  men  of  uncomnma 
taleuls,  of  considerable  acquirements,  and  of  assiduous  study. 
They  have  no  doubt  generally  been  well  persuaded  of  the  truth  of 
their  schemes,  and  heartily  devoted  to  them.  But  all  this  does  not 
prove,  that  their  schemes  have  been  any  thing  better  than  "wind 
and  ciii!rusi«)n." 

Nor  does  it  injply  the  existence  of  true  religion,  to  have  obtain- 
ed the  reputation  of  leading  a  pure  life.  AVe  think  it  very  easy 
ibr  an  infi<lel  to  lead  as  good  a  life,  as  that  which  has  been  in  fact 
exhibited,  by  many  professed  Christians,  who  have  been  canoni/.- 
ed,  and  almost  idolized,  by  their  friends  and  followers. 


Review  of  the  Unitarian  Controversy.  43 

Let  us  see,  for  a  momrnt,  liow  an  inquiry  after  trutli  would  ap- 
pear, if  conducted  upon  these  principles.  A  certain  man  embraces 
a  doctrine,  which  is  founded  in  dangerous  error.  He  is  warned  of 
his  danger;  but  replies,  <>I  have  no  fears;  this  doctrine  has  been 
embraced  by  men  of  the  pi-ofoundest  thought  iuid  the  purest  lives." 
Suppose  the  fact  to  be,  that  his  leaders  are  men  of  stupid  mi)ids  and 
corrupt  lives;  how  is  he  to  be  convinced  of  it?  AVhoever  under- 
takes the  task  of  convincing  iiim,  will  rini  the  hazard  (jf  being  re- 
proached as  a  bigot,  a  calumniator,  an  unauthorized,  and  censf)ri- 
Gus  judge  of  his  fellow  Christians.  Thus  the  cojitroversy,  inslcad 
of  resolving  itself  into  a  scx'iptural  inquii-y,  degenerates  into  a  mis- 
erable altercation  about  the  j)ersonal  cbaj-actcr  of  certain  leaders, 
who  lived  centuries  ag(i,  and  titousands  of  milrs  from  the  scene  of 
controversy;  and  whose  ibaractcr,  if  they  \\ere  living,  and  on  the 
spot,  could  be  justly  ewtimated  by  no  other  than  the  Uiuniscient. 
Of  all  questions,  those,  wliich  relate  to  tiie  personal  character  oi' 
individuals,  who  are  hated  by  one  i)arty  and  the  favorites  of  anoth- 
er, are  the  most  unlikely  to  be  amicably  settled.  In  tbe  first  phice, 
all  men  have  faults,  which  the  eagle  eyes  of  their  enemies  will  be 
very  apt  to  discover  and  magnify.  Secondly;  many  virtues  are 
changed  into  faults  by  the  j)rejudiccs  of  an  adversary.  Thirdly; 
most  men  possess  qualities,  which  bear  some  resemblance  to  virtues, 
and  which  the  voice  of  friendship,  or  of  favoritism,  can  eulogize  as 
the  most  splendid  of  virtues. 

If  a  reputation  for  purity  of  life  in  a  teacher  is  to  be  the  pass- 
port for  all  the  doctrines  which  he  teaches,  so  far  as  to  assure  his 
f(dlowers,  that  there  can  be  nothing  dangerous  in  those  doctiines, 
then  the  question,  Wlud  is  jjiirltij  of  life?  will  fui-nisJi  a  subject  oi" 
endless  debate.  On  no  question  whatever  would  there  be  a  more 
radical  difference  of  opinion.  Must  the  purity  of  a  teacher  equal 
that  of  Dr,  Price,  who,  as  Mrs.  Barbauld  is  confident,  might  de- 
mand admission  into  heaven  as  a  matter  of  justice?  Or  will  it  be 
sufficient  to  come  up  to  the  standard  of  Hume,  who,  in  the  opinion 
of  Adam  Smith,  approached  «<as  nearly  to  the  idea  of  a  perffdly 
wise  and  virtums  man,  as  perhaj)s  the  nature  of  human  fi-aiUy  A\ill 
permit?"  Or  shall  Rousseau  be  the  i|iodel,  who,  after  a  life  of  impi- 
ety, vice,  and  infidelity,  boasted  that  he  was  about  to  surrender  his 
soul  pure  into  the  hands  of  his  Maker? 

It  has  always  been  the  policy  of  Unitarians  to  pi*aise  each  other 
most  extravagantly,  as  being  possessed  of  every  intellectual  and 
moral  endowment.  The  reason  of  this  policy  is  very  obvious,  li' 
the  praise,  which  they  lavish  so  freely,  is  not  allowed  to  be  just, 
they  exclaim^  What  bigotry!  AVIiat  ifliberaiity!  What  an  attach- 
ment to  s.ix:t  that  must  be,  which  can  see  notliing  good  out  of  its 
own  pale!  If  the  justice  of  their  praise  is  in  any  respect  admitted,  or 
even  if  tiie  subject  of  pei-sonal  character  is  passed  over  in  silence, 
they  dwell  long  and  often  on  the  question,  "Is  it  possible  that  such 
great  men,  such  good  men,  the  rerif  be.'^t  men  in  the  icorld,  can  be 
fundamentally  erroneous?"  In  either  of  these  alternatives,  their 
appeal  is  not  in  vain  to  the  passions  and  feelings  of  a  large  class  of 


44  Review  of  the  Unitarian  Controverity. 

readers.  Yet  these  are  the  writers,  who  profess  to  dcci'y  a  reli- 
ance on  human  authority! 

To  leave  this  topic,  on  which  we  have  dwelt  lonajer  than  our  lim- 
its can  well  afford,  Dr.  Worcester  had  used  the  word  ortiiodox,  as 
it  is  commonly  used,  as  a  term  of  distinction,  not  of  praise.  Mr. 
C.  endeavors  to  take  an  advantage  of  tliis  use  of  the  word,  under- 
stands it  as  a  term  of  praise,  and  seems  to  make  a  very  serious  bu- 
siness of  it.  As  tiie  meaning  of  Dr.  AV.  is  perfectly  apparent,  we 
really  wonder  what  could  induce  Mr.  C.  to  refuse  his  antagonist  the 
common  and  proper  use  of  a  very  common  word.  Drowning  men 
catch  very  eagerly  at  straw  s. 

jMr.  Cha)niing  says,  p.  23,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  "has 
for  ages  perplexed  and  distressed  the  mind  of  almost  every  reflect- 
ing Christian."  This  is  a  specimen  of  the  loose,  random  manner, 
in  which  Mr.  C.  customarily  ventures  his  assertions.  AVe  are  con- 
fident, that  he  labors  under  a  great  mistake  on  this  subject.  We 
have  been  personally  acquainted  wiih  many  reflecting  Christians, 
in  different  conditions  of  life,  from  the  aged,  learned,  pious  divine, 
or  the  venerable,  contemplative  matron,  to  the  thoughtful,  devout 
farmer  or  mechanic;  from  persons  who  resemble  the  late  Dr.  Rodg- 
ers  and  the  late  Mrs.  Graliam  of  New-York  to  those  who  ai-e  not 
unlike  the  Shepherd  of  Salisbury  Tlain;  and  we  have  not  found 
them  distressed  in  the  manner  described  by  Mr.  Channing.  We 
therefore  utterly  discredit  his  statement,  it  appears  by  Dr. 
Worcester's  Third  Letter,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  d.)es  not 
^distress  his  mind;'  and  we  know,  that  *many  reflecting  Christians' 
most  cordially  feel  as  he  does,  and  unite  with  him  in  considering 
this  doctrine,  as  a  theme  of  delightful  meditation,  as  a  source  of 
perpetual  and  holy  joy. 

Unitarians  have  always  endeavored  to  make  a  display  of  their 
own  numbers;  and,  in  doing  this,  they  have  often  set  all  truth  and 
decency  at  defiance.  When  the  subject  of  their  great  numbers  is 
exhausted,  they  attempt  to  persuade  their  readers,  that  most  pro- 
fessed Trinitarians  are  in  fact  tnitarians,  if  they  only  knew  how 
to  tell  what  they  believe;  and,  when  driven  from  this  ground,  they 
dwell  upon  the  distressed  and  comfortless  condition  of  Trinitaiians. 
But  these  arts,  separately  or  conjointly,  will  not  answer  the  pur- 
pose intended.  We  mean  not  to  deny,  that  the  minds  of  indivi(hi- 
als  have  been  distressed  on  the  sijbject  of  the  Trinity.  Tiiat  is 
probably  the  case  with  most  of  those,  w  ho  ultimately  become  Uni- 
tarians. But  this  distress  can  be  traced  to  other  causes,  than  the 
mysterious  nature  of  the  doctrine  itself;  jind  facts  are  far,  very  far, 
from  warranting  the  broad  assertion,  which  we  have  Just  quoted. 

Mr,  Channing  says,  p.  27,  that  the  presept  conti-oversy  "pi-i- 
inarily  relates  to  t|ie  moral  character  of  the  great  body  of  liberal 
Christians."  This  is  another  random  assertion,  for  which  there  is 
not  the  least  color,  or  pretence.  Neither  our  Reyiew,  nor  Dr. 
Worcester's  Letter,  said  a  single  word,  directly  or  implicitly,  about 
the  "moral  character  of  the  great  body  of  liberal  Christians.'* 
We  are  sorry  that  3Ir.  C.  had  not  taken  some  pains  not  to  nnike 


Review  of  the  Unitarian  Controversy.  45 

groundless  assertions;  especially  such  as  have  a  direct  tendency  to 
arouse  the  passions  of  this  "great  body  of  liberal  Christians"  with- 
out any  reason. 

In  answer  to  Dr.  Worcester's  declaration,  addressed  to  Mr. 
Channing,  "The  Savior  whom  you  acknowledge  is  infinitely  inferi- 
or to  ours,"  Mr.  C.  says,  p.  26,  "We  believe  that  GOD  saves  us 
by  his  son  Jesus  Christ,  in  whom  lie  dwells,  and  through  whom  he 
bestows  pardon  and  eternal  life.  A  highej-  Savior  we  do  not  know, 
and  cannot  conceive."  To  this  passage  Dr.  W.  very  properly  re- 
joins: «'I  did  suppose  you  would  yet  acknowledge  JESUS 
CHRIST  to  be  your  SAVIOR.  Your  declaration,  however,  if  it 
has  any  pertinency,  plaiidy  imports  that  you  do  not."  Mr.  C.  en- 
deavors to  evade  the  force  of  this  rejoinder,  in  the  Note  to  his  sec- 
ond series  of  Remarks.  It  is  impossible,  however,  to  make  out 
this  evasion.  Whatever  Mr.  C.  intended,  his  language  clearly 
disclaimed  Jesus  Christ  as  his  Savior;  and  the  declarations  which 
he  has  quoted  from  Scripture,  as  his  justification,  are  not  at  all 
similar  to  the  one  in  question. 

Mr.  Channing's  defence  of  what  he  had  said  concerning  our  Re- 
view rests  entirely  upon  the  assumption,  that  he  had  stated  nothing 
more  than  the  "impression,"  which  it  made  on  iiis  own  mind,  and 
which  it  had  a  tendency  to  make  on  the  minds  ot  readers  at  large. 
He  implicitly  admits,  tliat  a  "verbal  critic,  with  a  dictionary  in  his 
hand,"  might  make  a  great  deal  less  of  it,  tlian  he  had  actually 
made.  In  other  words,  we  were  not  to  be  judged  by  the  language 
which  we  had  used;  but  by  tlie  impressions,  which  men  excessively 
goaded  and  iriitated  by  our  disclosures,  and  greatly  excited  by 
inparting  their  angry  feelings  to  each  other,  had  hastily  received 
from  it.  Mr.  C.  applies  the  same  rule  of  interpretation  to  Dr. 
Worcester's  Letter.  He  accordingly  sums  up,  in  a  very  obnoxi- 
ous form,  what  he  states  to  be  "the  obvious  import  of  the  conclud- 
ing part  of"  that  letter.  As  we  have  not  room  to  enter  i»ito  pai-- 
ticulars,  we  do  not  quote  the  passage.  Soon  after  Mr.  Channing's 
Remarks  appeared.  Dr.  W.  addressed  to  him  a  Second  Letter.  A 
prominent  part  of  this  letter  is  occupied  in  proving,  that  Mr.  C. 
had  made  "a  flagrant  misstatement,"  where  he  professes  to  give 
the  "obvious  impoit"  of  the  First  Letter;  and  in  calling  upon  him 
"to  retract."  After  connecting  this  misstatement,  and  several 
others  of  minor  consequence.  Dr.  %V.  proceeds  to  show,  at  some 
length  the  radical  difference  between  Trinitaiians  and  Unitarians. 
He  shows,  that  the  orthodox  believe  in  the  plenary  inspiration  of 
the  Scriptures,  and  that  Unitarians  disallow  such  an  inspiration; 
that  the  orthodox  believe  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity;  that  they 
hold  this  doctrine  to  be  fundamentally  important;  that  they  believe 
in  the  divinity  of  Christ,  in  his  incarnation,  in  his  expiatory  sacri- 
fice, and  in  justification  by  faith  alone;  while  Unitarians  reject 
these  doctrines,  or  entirely  explain  them  away. 

At  the  commencement  of  this  Letter,  Dr.  W.  expresses  his  Hleiib- 
crate  judgment,  in  which  he  had  the  concurrence  of  all  A\ith  whom 
he  had  conversed,  that  Mr.  C.  had  not  directly  met  him  at  a  siitgle 


46  Review  of  the  Unitarian  Controversff.  ' 

point,  shown  him  to  be  incorrect  in  a  single  statement,  nor  refuted 
liim  in  a  single  position,  or  argument^  and,  in  a  word,  that  ISIr. 
C.'s  Remarks  were  no  real  ans\\er  to  his  First  Letter.'  Dr.  W. 
then  inquires,  by  what  means  Mi's  C.  had  been  able  to  give  his 
Remarks  the  appearance  and  effect  of  an  answer;  for  that  it  had  tluit 
appearance  and  that  effect,  in  tbe  view  of  some  persons,  is  admit- 
ted. By  a  very  dear  and  powerful  analysis  Dr.  W.  shows,  that 
the  Remarks  ot  Mr.  C.  owed  whatever  elHcacy  they  possessed,  to 
the  imputation  of  a  bad  intention;  to  his  representing  Dr.  W.'s  Let- 
ter as  %/iiEflnr/ /r//ftH,§-;  to  his  diverting  the  reader's  attention  from 
the  point  and  the  argument;  and  to  misstatement. 

Tliis  Second  Letter  is  written  with  moderation,  solemnity,  and 
great  ability.  It  bears  evident  testimony,  not  only  to  tbe  consci- 
cntionsness  of  tbe  writer,  but  to  his  care,  patience,  and  diligence, 
as  well  as  to  bis  profound  veneration  for  tiie  Scriptures,  and  his 
habit  of  fair  and  close  investigation. 

Mr.  Channing,  having  been  called  upon  in  a  solemn  manner  to 
retract,  judged  it  expedient  to  publish  Remarks  on  Dr.  Worcester's 
Second  Letter.  He  attempts  to  vindicate  his  interpretation  of  the 
obvious  import  of  the  First  Letter,  by  a  particular  examination  of 
seAci'a!  passages.  His  grand  rule  of  interpretation  contiimes  to  be 
the  ''impression,''  which  a  writing  makes  on  bis  mind,  and  tbe 
minds  of  his  friends.  He  makes  some  further  developements  of 
the  creed  of  the  liberal  ])arty  in  this  country,  and  proceeds  to  con- 
sider what  he  is  pleased  to  call  *<tbe  methods  of  i-enderiug  Unitari- 
ans odious."  These  methods  are,  according  to  Mr.  C.  •painting  in 
the  strongest  colors  the  diftcrences  between  Unitarians  and  Trini- 
tarians;' 'representing  Unitarians  as  obliged  by  their  sentiments  to 
give  up  the  doctrhic  of  tlic  atonement;'  'asserting  that  tbe\  disbe- 
lieve the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  because  ri  is  njystericms;'  'address- 
ing the  feai-s  of  Christians;'  and  charging  Unitarians  'with  at- 
tempting to  conceal  the  differences  between  themselves  a)nl  'I'jini- 
tarians.'  The  Remarks  are  concluded  with  a  consideration  of  what 
Mr.  C.  calls  "the  system  of  exclusion  and  denunciation."  On  this 
subject,  he  goes  througli  the  common  topics  of  Unitarian  declama- 
tion, with  rather  uncommon  z^'al  and  spirit.  Though  he  has  notli- 
ing,  which  can  be  called  fair  argtunent.  he  ocrasio)ially  rises  into 
the  region  of  elocpience.  He  concludes  with  a!i  earnest  attem})t  to 
ilissuade  from  an  open,  forsnal  separation  between  Ti'initarians  and 
Unitarians.  jNot  a  few  of  his  reasonings  and  assei'tions  are  con- 
tradictory to  each  other;  but,  as  a  whole,  the  pamphlet  was  calcu- 
lated to  produce  some  effect  upon  tiie  party  in  whose  behalf  it  was 
written.  All  the  great  points  in  Di*.  Worcester's  l^etters  were 
omitted,  or  evaded,  as  before;  and  recourse  is  had  by  Mr.  C  to  his 
former  subterfuge,  that  Chiistians  of  the  present  day  are  not  oblig- 
ed to  reject  the  preacliers  of  '"another  Gospel,"  because  these 
Christians  are  not  themselves  apostles:  tliat  is.  Christians  are  not 
obliged  to  obey  a  plain  rule  of  Scripture,  because  they  ai-e  not 
Iheinselves  inspired. 


Revieiv  of  the  Unitarian  Controversy.  47 

Dr.  Worcester's  Tliird  Letter  is  one  of  the  ablest  paniplilcts, 
which  any  controversy  has  produced.  It  ought  to  be  generally  cir- 
culated and  read;  and  we  are  persuaded  it  cannot  be  read,  without 
producing  a  deep  and  lasting  effect  iiighly  favorable  to  the  cause  of 
truth.  The  vindication  of  Mr*  C.'s  misstatement,  which  that  gentle- 
man had  attempted,  was  quickly  and  eftectually  despatched;  and  Dr. 
W.  advanced  to  an  examination  of  the  further  developcment  of  tlie 
creed,  which  Mr.  C.  had  given,  as  common  to  himselt  and  his  par- 
ticular friends.  After  quoting  a  passage  fi-om  this  creed,  Dr.  W, 
proceeds,  in  the  following  eloquent  strain. 

"With  these  "liberal  Christians,"  then,  it  is  a  matter  of  utter  uncertainty, 
o£  endless  doubt,  and,  it  would  seem,  of  cold  and  lofty  indifference,  who  the 
Savior  of  the  world  is! — whether  he  is  a  created,  or  an  uncreated  being; 
whether  he  existed  from  eternity,  or  begun  to  exist  in  time;  whether  he  is  a 
God,  who,  though  inferior  to  the  "supreme  God,"  has  yet  a  rightful  claim  to 
i-eligious  worship,  or  only  their  fellow  servant,  to  whom  no  divine  honors  be- 
long! From  other  passages,  on  which  I  shall  have  occasion  in  another  place 
to  remark,  it  appears  that  the  same  uncertainty,  and  doubt,  and  indifference 
exist  with  these  same  "liberal  Christians,"  in  regard  to  what  Jesus  Christ 
has  done  for  them: — whether  he  died  to  expiate  their  sins  with  blood  of  inesti- 
mable merit,  or  whether  "in  coiisequeiicc'"  merely  "of  what  he  has  done  and 
suffered,  the  punishment  of  sin  is  averted  from  the  penitent;"  as  it  may  have 
been,  in  consequence  of  the  sufferings  and  labors,  the  instructions  and  inter- 
cessions of  Paul  and  other  good  men,  by  whose  means  sinners  have  been 
brought  to  repentance! — Of  course,  there  must  be  similar  uncertainty,  doubt, 
and  iiidifTereuce,  as  to  the  obligations  which  they  owe  to  him;  as  to  the  love 
and  trust,  the  thanks  and  honors  to  which  he  is  entitled. — Do  they  then  hon- 
or the  Son,  even  as  they  honor,  or  should  honor  the  Father?  They  do  not 
know  who  or  what  the  Son  is.  Are  they  blessed  in  putting  iheir  trust  in  him? 
They  do  not  know  to  what  extent,  or  for  what  purposes  he  is  to  be  trusted. 
Do  they  delight  to  join  in  the  heavenly  anthem,  "\\'(n-thy  is  the  Lamb  that  was 
slain  to  receive  power,  and  riches,  and  wisdom,  and  strength,  and  honor,  and 
glory,  and  blessing.''"  They  do  not  know  that  he  is  worthy  thus  to  be  adored 
and  praised! — Ah!  where  arc  we?  Into  what  a  region  of  frost,  of  darkness,  of 
the  shadow  of  death  are  we  advancing! — Is  tiiis,  Sir,  the  light  which  is  so  ar- 
dently hailed,  and  so  loudly  proclaimed  by  the  "rational  Christians,"  of  this 
favored  age?  Is  it  here  that  we  are  to  find  the  gr^nd  consummation  of  divine 
knowledge,  that  "purer  system  of  Christianity,"  to  which  you  and  your  "lib- 
eral" brethren  would  guide  mankind?  Is  it  in  this  chilling,  dismal  clime,  that 
professed  Christians  of  every  name  are  to  meet  together  in  one  blessed  fel- 
lowship? No  wonder  then  that  Jews  and  Infidels,  Mohammedans  and  Pa- 
gans are  invited  to  participate  in  the  blessedness.  And  no  wonder,  that  they 
who  adore  the  Lord  Jesus,  as  '■'■the  true  God  and  eternal  life"  and  delight  in 
the  ascription,  "Unto  him  that  loved  us,  and  washed  us  from  our  sins,  in  his 
own  blood,  and  hath  made  us  kings  and  priests  unto  God  and  his  Father, — 
to  him  be  glory  and  dominion  for  ever  and  ever,"  should  decline  the  invita- 
tion." pp.  13,  14, 

Dr.  W.  then  urges  the  uiu'casonablencss  of  supposing,  that  the 
Scriptures  have  left  the  primary  subjects  of  inspiration  in  such  ob- 
scurity, as  the  wiitings  of  Mr.  C.  and  other  Unitarians  would  lead 
us  to  believe.  He  examines  tlie  question,  whether  the  appellation. 
Son  of  Gody  implies  any  inferiority  of  nature,  and  shows  the  doc- 
trine of  the  pi'imitive  church  on  that  subject.  He  states  the  sysr 
tem  of  Dr.  Clark,  and  concludes,  justly  for  auglit  that  we  can  see, 
that  "if  there  ^^  as  ever  a  Trithcist  in  Ciiristcntlom,  Dr.  Clark  was 


48  JReview  of  the  Unitarian  Controversy. 

one;  and  if,  (as  Mr.  C.  had  asserted,)  "the  liberal  Christians  in 
this  part  of  our  countiy  agree  substantially  with  Dr.  Clark,"  in- 
stead of  being  Unitarians,  they  are  TritheisLs."  He  goes  into  a 
very  sublime,  because  a  very  scriptural,  explanation  of  tbe  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity;  of  which  we  should  gladly  quote  several  pa- 
ges, did  our  limits  permit.  He  introduces  a  very  weighty  passage 
from  the  Bishop  of  Durham,  whom  Mr.  C.  had  called  the  "pro- 
found Butler,"  and  claimed  as  an  ally,  but  whose  belief,  on  the 
smbject  of  the  Trinity,  was  most  directly  opposite  to  Mr.  Chan- 
ning's.  The  popular  objection  of  Unitarians  and  infidels,  that  "it 
is  out  of  our  power  to  believe  a  proposition  of  which  we  do  not  knoTV 
the  meaning.*'  is  scrutinized;  and  it  clearly  appears,  as  an  inference 
from  Mr.  Channing's  most  abundant  concessions,  that  Unitarians 
do  not  know  the  meaning  of  the  single  essential  article  of  their 
creed;  viz.  "Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God;"  nor  of 
the  proposition,  "Christ  died  for  our  sins." 

Dr.  W.  does  not  concede,  however,  that  tlie  case  is  the  same 
with  Trinitarians  in  regard  to  the  doctrines  which  they  believe. 
He  contends,  that  himself  and  his  brethren  "understand  the  mean- 
ing of  the  proposition.  The  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit  are  three 
Divine  Persons  in  one  God."  We  are  very  happy  that  this  sub- 
ject fell  in  the  way  of  Dr.  AVorcester.  It  is  one,  which  has  afford- 
ed Unitarians  much  self-complacency,  and  on  which  they  seem  to 
think  themselves  triumphant.  For  a  year  or  two  we  have  intend- 
ed to  examine  it,  and  are  not  a  little  pleased,  that  the  discussion  has 
fallen  into  abler  hands.  On  the  objection  of  mystery,  we  quote  a 
short  paragraph: 

"The  objection  of  mystery,  which  you  and  other  Unitarians  are  perpetu- 
ally urging  against  the  Trinity,  might  be  urged,  and  has  been  urged,  with 
equal  reason,  and  with  equal  force,  against  all  the  principal  doctrines  of  re- 
ligion, both  natural  and  revealed.  If  we  are  to  fly  before  this  objection,  we 
must  fly  not  only  from  orthodoxy  to  Unitarianism,  but  from  Unitarianism 
to  Deism,  from  Deism  to  atheism,  and  from  atheism  to  universal  skepticism. 
If  the  pretensions  of  the  "rational  Christian"  to  superior  wisdom,  because, 
to  avoid  mystery,  he  denies  the  Trinity,  are  well  founded;  then  for  the 
same  reason,  the  Deist  is  wiser  than  the  rational  Christian,  the  atheist  is 
wiser  than  the  Deist,  and  the  universal  skeptic  is  the  wisest  man  of  all.  And 
upon  this  scale,  I  suppose,  the  pretensions  to  wisdom  ai-e  actually  gradu- 
ated."   p.  32. 

Dr.  W.  next  examines  the  creed  of  Unitarians,  that  is,  of  Mr. 
C.  and  his  friends,  on  the  subject  of  the  atonement;  and  this  discus- 
sion forms  a  very  interesting  part  of  the  pamphlet.  He  shews, 
that  Mr.  C.^s  views  of  this  doctrine  are  entirely  vague  and  ambig- 
uous; that  he  evidently  framed  a  creed,  which  should  embrace  all 
Unitarians,  whether  they  believe  in  the  atonement  or  not. 

In  answer  to  what  Mr.  C.  had  said  respecting  the  evils  of  sepa- 
ration, and  the  obligations  of  charity,  Dr.  A^^  inquires  into  the 
scriptural  meaning  of  charity,  and  illustrates  the  subject  by  the  ex- 
ample of  our  Savior  and  his  apostles.  He  forcibly  contrasts  this 
x^harity  with  the  indifference  to  religious  doctrines  contended  for  by 


lieview  nf  the  Unitarian  Confroversy.  49 

Tir.  Price,  and  many  other  Unitarians,  beside  Mr.  Channing. 
He  then  comes  to  the  question,  whetlicr,  as  Mr.  C's  whole  system 
of  fellowship  supposes,  it  is  impossible  for  an  uninspired  man  to  at- 
tain any  certainty  repecting  the  great  truths  of  the  Gospel.  This 
discussion  is  so  atlmirable,  that  we  cannot  resist  our  inclination  to 
lay  it  before  our  readej's,  as  containing  a  specimen  of  the  powerful 
reasoning  eni]!loyed  tiiroughout  the  pamphlet,  and  as  exhibiting  in 
a  very  sti-ong  light  the  true  question  at  issue, 

"Is  it  however  so,  that  no  uninspired  man  can  know,  nor  has  a  right  to 
judge  what  the  true  Gospel  of  Clirist  is?  For  what  purpose  then  were  the 
apostles  and  the  prophets  before  them  inspired?  Was  it  merely  for  their  own 
benefit?  or  at  most  for  theirs,  and  the  benefit  of  otiiers  of  their  own  times?  For 
what  purjjose  then  were  the  revelations  which  were  communicated  to  them, 
committed  to  writing,  and  transmitted  with  so  much  care  to  succeeding  gen- 
erations? Of  what  use  are  the  Scriptures,  if  no  uninspired  man  can  know 
with  any  certainty  what  are  the  doctrines  contained  in  them? — The  cele- 
brated Hume  has  asserted,  that  miracles  could  be  of  no  use,  as  attest- 
ations to  a  divine  revelation,  excepting  to  such  as  were  eye-witnesses  of 
them;  because  no  other  j)ersons  could  have  sufficient  evidence  of  the  facts. 
But  I  belie\  e  tliat  even  that  gigantic  adversary  of  tlie  Gospel  never  went  so 
far  as  your  argument  goes:  nc\er  vuidcrtook  to  assert  that  a  divine  revelation, 
though  well  attested,  could  never  make  any  doctrine  or  truth  certain,  except- 
ing to  inspired  men;  because  no  other  persons  cou'd  ever  know  with  any  cer- 
tainty what  doctrines  or  truths  are  revealed.  Had  he  liglited  upon  this  dis- 
covery, he  would  have  found  an  argument  against  revelation,  incomparably 
more  available  than  any  which  he  has  urged;  an  ai'gument  wliich,  if  correct 
in  its  premises,  must  be  decisive  in  its  conclusion;  for  unquestionably  a  God 
of  infinite  wisdom  and  goodness  would  never  communicate  a  revelation, 
to  the  world,  for  the  instruction  and  faith  of  uninspired  men,  if  none  but 
tlie  insyjired  could  understand  it,  or  attain  to  any  certainty  in  regard  to  its 
doctrines.  Upon  this  Unitarian  principle,  inspiration,  to  answer  its  purpose, 
nuist  be  continutd  throughout  all  ages;  just  as  Hume  contended  that  miracles 
must  be. 

"This  point  demands  very  particular  attention,  for  it  is  the  very  hinge  on 
wliich  the  question  respecting  fellowship  tiuMis.  Let  it  then  be  again  dis- 
tinctly noted,  that  you  have  found  yourself  compelled  to  concede,  that  the  in- 
spired apostles  did  exclude  from  fellowship  those  who  embraced  another 
(iospel,  or- doctrines  or  opinions  subversive  of  the  Gospel  of  Christ.  This 
esrablisheir  the  principle  decisively,  that  it  would  be  right  to  separate  from 
such  now,  could  it  only  be  determined  what  the  Gospel  of  Clirist  is,  and  what 
another  Gospel.  But  this,  you  contend,  no  uninspired  man  or  body  of  men 
has  a  rig!it  to  determine.  The  Unitarian  system,  as  set  forth  by  Mr.  Bel- 
sliam,  is  clearly  opposite,  in  every  essential  point,  to  the  orthodox  system. 
Yet  no  miinspired  man  has  a  right  to  determine,  whicli  of  these  two  opposite 
systems  is  the  true  Gospel;  no  one  has  a  right  to  pronounce  either  of  them 
false!  And,  therefore,  tlie  believers  in  eitlier  of  them  have  no  right  to  separate 
from  the  believers  in  the  othei-! — If  it  be  really  so,  then  let  us  hear  no  more 
of  the  great  Protestant  princijile,  that  (he  Hcri/ilun'f/are  a  sufficient  ride  of 
faith;  for  instead  df  being  a  sufficient  rule,  they  are  no  rule  at  all.  They 
do  not  enable  or  warrant  us  to  decide  between  two  systems,  fundamentally 
and  dianietricallv  opposite,  wliich  is  true,  or  whether  both  of  them  are  false. 
What  the  (iospel  of  Christ  is,  no  uninspired  man  can  tell.  If  any  undertake 
to  determine,  and  to  pronounce  an  o]j])osite  system  another  Gospel,  they  are 
to  be  regarded  as  illilieral  and  uncharitable  men,  "proud  and  arrogant"  pre- 
tenders "to  "infallibility,"  ignorant  "bigots,"  and  odious  "persecutors." 

"The  question  respecting  fellowship  or  separation  certainly  resolves  itself 
into  this  point.  If  the  Scrijitures  are  a  sujticient  rule  of  faith,  if  from  tiiem 
uninspired  men  can  know  what  the  doctrines  of  Christ  are,  or  wiiat  the 
true  Gospel  is;  then  they  have  apostolic,  divine  authority  for  withdrawing 
and  withholding  feIlov>'ship  from  those,  who  reject  the  true,  and  en^brace 
7 


jO  Review  of  the  UnUariaii  Controverny. 

another  Gospel.  If  the  Scriptures  are  not  a  sufficient  rule  of  faith;  if  no  uh- 
inspired  man  can  know  what  the  Gospel  of  Christ  is;  then  the  "faith  of 
Christians  is  vain,  and  our  preaching  also  is  vain;"  and  we  have  yet  to 
wait,  in  gloomy  uncertainty,  in  dismal  darkness,  until  God  in  his  sovereign 
goodnesss  shall  again  bless  the  world,  or  some  portion  of  it,  with  the  gift 
of  inspiration."    pp.  52, 53. 

We  should  really  be  pleased  to  sec  ^Ir.  Chauning  undertake  to 
grapple  with  this  passage.  If  he  should  not  be  willing  to  try  his 
strength  upon  it,  let  hiui  take  a  long  passage,  whicii  Di*.  Worcester 
quoted  from  Chillingworth,  in  the  conclusion  of  which  that  able 
wi'iter  declares,  "I  do  heartily  acknowledge  and  believe  the  arti- 
cles of  our  faith  to  be  in  tliemselves  truths  as  certain  and  infallible, 
as  tbe  very  common  principles  of  geometry  or  metaphysics." 

Mr.  Channing  had  assumed  it  as  a  fact,  tliat  the  false  teacliers, 
in  the  days  of  the  apostles,  were  men  of  much  worse  character  than 
any  class  of  teachers  in  our  days;  that  they  knew  distinctly  that  they 
were  opposing  the  tiuth,  and  were  therefore  justly  excluded  from 
Christian  fellowship.  Dr.  W.  exposes  the  fallacy  of  these  assump- 
tions; and  concludes,  that  "there  is  no  evidence  to  show,  nor  rea- 
son to  believe,  that  the  adversaries  of  the  truth  were  not  as  sincere, 
as  candid,  as  virtuous,  and  as  respectable,  in  the  first  days  of  the 
Gospel,  as  they  are  in  the  present  age.'* 

Mr.  C.  had  complained,  that  a  condemning  sentence  should  be 
passed  upon  tbe  characters  of  men;  by  wliich  Dr.  W.  understands 
him  to  mean  <a  sentence  of  non-communion.'  The  inquiry  is  then 
made,  whether  Unitarians  do  not  claim  and  exercise  the  right  of 
excluding  from  their  fellowship  persons  who  deny  their  one  essen- 
tial article?  And  yet  a  denial  of  this  article  results  merely  *lrom 
difference  of  opinion,'  from  'mistake  in  judgment,'  and  may,  if  Mr. 
Channing  is  to  be  trusted,  be  perfectly  innocent.  Not  only  does  Mr. 
C.  exclutle  from  Christian  fellowship  on  account  of  opinion;  but, 
on  the  same  account,  passes  'a  condemning  sentence  on  the  charac- 
ters of  men.'  Dr.  W.  then  selects  only  a  small  part  of  the  passages, 
in  which  Mr.  C.  had  pouicd  forth  a  torrent  of  obloquy  and  reproach 
against  all,  in  every  age,  w  ho  have  thought  it  right  to  exclude  pro- 
fessed Christians  from  the  church,  on  account  of  their  doctrinal 
errors.  We  think  Mr.  C.  must  have  been  somewhat  startled  at  the 
number,  violence,  and  opprobrious  character  of  the  epithets,  which 
had  flowed  so  volubly  from  his  pen;  and  which  clearly  indicated, 
that  the  habit  of  using  the  language  of  vituperation  and  abuse  was 
but  too  prevalent  with  him  and  his  friends.  At  the  close  of  this  ex- 
posure Dr.  W.  declares,  that  <it  was  with  no  common  feelings  of 
grief  he  found  himself  compelled  to  say,  that  a  heavier  sentence 
than  Mr.  Channing's,  against  the  disciples  of  the  Lord,  against 
«the  church  of  the  living  God,  the  pillar  and  ground  of  tlie  truth," 
liad  never,  he  believed,  been  pronounced, by  the  bitterest  of  enemies, 
either  jiagan  or  infidel.' 

Mr.  C.  bad  insisted,  that  the  <*only  standard  of  Christian  charac- 
ter is  the  ij/e."  Dr.  W.  was  not  disposed  to  controvert  the  declaration 
of  our  Savior,  "By  their  fruits  shall  ye  know  them."  He  showed, 
however,  at  large,  and  with  decisive  eflcct,  that /ruifs,  in  the  scrip- 
tural sense,  do  not  intend  external  morality  merely.     Indeed  noth- 


Review  of  the  Unitarian  Controversy.  51 

m^  can  be  clearer,  than  that/rwiis  are  relied  upon  in  conh-adistinc- 
tion  from  mevc  professions,  as  the  test  of  character.  Under/7-«i^s  arc 
comprehended  all  discoverable  evidences  of  a  person's  real  char- 
acter, in  opposition  to  his  own  unsupported  jn-ttensions  to  virtue 
and  piety.  The  Scriptures  plainly  teach,  that  the  reception  of  the 
cardinal  doctrines  of  Christianity  is  not  less  indispensable,  than  the 
practice  of  its  moral  precepts,  to  the  very  existence  of  the  Chris- 
tian graces. 

The  Letter  closes  witli  a  view  of  some  of  the  ^frightful  conse- 
quences,' which  Mr.  Channinsj  apprehends  from  the  contemplated 
separation. 

We  have  faithfully  given  the  outlines  of  this  masterly  production, 
and  can  assure  our  readers,  that  it  is  well  W(n-thy  of  deliberate  and 
rejjeated  perusal,  and  to  be  kept  on  the  shelf  as  a  complete  and  un- 
answerable refutation  of  the  most  common  and  plausible  sophistries 
of  Unitarian  writers.  We  understand  Mr.  C.  pronounces  it  to  be 
so  bad,  that  he  w  ill  not  answer  jt.  We  applaud  this  resolution. 

It  now  remains,  that  we  introduce  some  miscellaneous  topics, 
which  it  seemed  most  proper  to  reserve  for  the  close  of  the  article. 

Dr.  Worcester  observes,  in  his  First  Letter,  that  Mr.  Channing 
<setms  to  forget  that  his  liberal  brethren  in  England  have  not  only 
proposed  a  separation,  but  have  actually  carried  the  proposition  into 
effect.'  p.  31.  Mr.  C.  in  his  Remarks  on  this  letter,  p.  22,  assumes  it  as 
a  fact,  that  the  separation  made  by  Unitarians  in  England  is  much 
less  to  be  dreaded  than  the  one  proposed  by  Dr,  W.  as  the  former  is 
only  "a  separation  in  worshifi^  a  separation  produced  by  the  adoption 
of  prayers,  hymns, and  doxologies,  accommodated  to  theirpeculiar  sen- 
timents." Dr.  W.  asks,  in  his  Second  Letter,  p.  20,  "What  is  this,  I 
pray  you,  but  a  thorough  disruption  of  fellowship,  a  complete  non- 
communion?"  In  his  last  pamphlet,  p.  47,  Mr.  C.  describes  the  worship 
of  the  English  Unitarians  as  "singularly  free  from  peculiarities;"  and 
says  "that  all  Christians  may  join  in  it  without  hesitation  or  pain.** 
"I  learn,"  says  he,  "that  Mr  Lindsey  introduced  inio  his  chapel  the 
Liturgy  of  the  Church  of  England,  omitting  only  the  few  parts,  in 
which  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  recognized,  and  directing  all  the 
prayers  to  the  Father  through  the  Son.  This  is  the  worship,  which  is 
most  common  among  all  denominations  in  this  country,  and  by  which 
no  Christian  can  be  offended.  Most  sincerely  do  I  wish,  that  our 
public  services  may  be  marked  by  this  liberal  character." 

Doubtless  "all  denominations  in  this  country"  profess  to  offer 
prayers  "to  the  Father  through  the  Son."  But  if  Mr.  Channing 
means,  that  they  so  direct  their  prayers  to  the  Father  through  the  Son, 
as  to  withhold  divine  worship  from  the  Son,  his  assertion  is  notorious- 
ly and  grossly  incorrect;  if  he  does  not  mean  this,  he  means  nothing 
to  the  purpose.  Is  Mr.  Channing  serious  in  supposing,  that  all  Chris- 
tians may,  "without  hesitation  or  pain,"  join  in  prayers,  from  which  all 
worship  to  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit  is  designedly  and  systematically 
excluded?  He  ought  to  know  belter.  Are  we  to  take,  as  a  specimen 
of  Mr.  C.'s  accuracy,  his  assertion  that  the  Liturgy  of  the  Churcii  of 
England  recognizes  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  in  a  'l/ew  parts"  only? 
If  we  are,  this  is  a  pretty  fair  sample.  As  to  the  •wish^  expressed  by 
!Mr.  C.  in  the  last  sentence  quoted  above,  we  think  Trinitarians,  who 
alter  their  prayers  for  the  sake  of  pleasing  Unitarians,  are  chargeable 
with  a   very  unwarrantable  compliance.    If  they  believe  the  Lord 


52  Review  of  the  Unitarian  Controversy, 

Jesus  Christ  to  be  worthy  of  the  highest  divine  honors;  and  that  he 
receives,  and  will  forever  receive,  these  honors  from  saints  and  angels 
in  heaven;  how  can  they  pretend  to  excuse  themselves  for  withhold- 
ing that  worship  which  they  believe  justly  due?  and  withholding  it  for 
the  s^ke  of  gratifying  those,  whom  they  believe  to  be  in  dangerous 
error;  thus,  in  their  own^judgment,  sacr-ficing  truth  to  error? 

The  design  of  Mr.  C.  in  the  passage  now  under  consideration,  was 
to  prove,  not  only  that  Trinitarians  and  the  lowest  Socinians  may  hold 
each  other  in  fellowship,  but  that  they  may  acuially  unite  in  pulilic 
■worship  ''without  hesitation  or  pain."  In  proving  this,  he  evidently 
supposed  he  should  shew  Dr.  W.  to  be  incorrect,  in  what  /le  had  al- 
leged concerning  the  separation  recommended  by  Unitarians  in 
England.  But  could  Mr.  C  be  ignorant,  that  Dr.  \V.  relied  on  the 
representations  of  Mr  Belsiiam?  And  does  not  Mr.  Belsham  say, 
concerning  the  system  of  Trinitarians  compared  with  that  ot  Unitari- 
ans, "No!  No!  Opinions  such  as  these  can  no  more  harmonize  with 
each  other  than  light  and  darkness,  than  Cluist  and  Bel'al.  They 
who  hold  doctrines  so  diajiietrically  olifioaite  cannot  be  fellow- wor- 
SHiPPFRs  IN  THE  SAME  TEMPLE."  Now  wc  huuibly  coMceive,  that 
Mr.  Belsham  is  here  the  advocate,  both  of  separation  in  worship', 
and  of  non  communion.  If  Trinitarians  and  Unitarians  "cannot  Le 
feilow-worshippers  in  the  same  temple,  "  we  do  not  see  how  they  can 
jom,(as  Mr  C.  says  they  can,)  in  the  same  worship  ^'without  hesiia- 
tion  or  pain."  And  as  to  communion,  Mr.  C.  must  either  admit  Mr. 
Belsham  to  be  the  advocate  of  "separation,"  of  "exclusion,"  of  "de- 
nunciation/' or  he  must  prove,  that  light  and  darkness  mean  sub- 
stantially the  same  thing,  and  that  Christ  and  Belial  may  really  be  on 
very  good  terms  with  each  other. 

Mr  C.  inquires,  in  the  note  to  his  last  pamphlet,  p.  46,  "why  can- 
not this  controversy  be  conducted  with  calmness,  without  impeach- 
ment ol  character  or  motives,  and  without  appeals  to  popular  feel- 
ing?" Indeed,  why  can  it  not?  We  think  Mr.  C.  ought  to  answer  his 
own  question.  We  should  be  extremely  fond  of  knowing,  whether 
Mr.  C.  considers  his  three  pamphlets  as  being  distinguished  for 
calmnes/i.  If  he  does,  his  mind  must  he  one  of  the  greatest  curiosi- 
ties, which  the  moral  universe  contains.  Again;  why  did  Mr.  C.  fiiul 
it  necessary  to  impeach  the  character  and  motives  oi  Dr.  W.  and  of 
orthodox  Christians  generally,  who  hold  to  the  duty  of  excluding  men 
from  Christian  fellowship  for  religious  error?  As  to  afi/wals  to  pofi- 
ular  feelings  if  we  may  judge  of  the  tendency  of  a  writing  by  its  ap- 
pearance to  our  own  muid,  or  by  its  tflfccts  on  the  public,  no  pam- 
phlets were  ever  more  entirely  and  characteristically  made  up  of  such 
appeals,  than  are  the  pamphlets  of  Mr.  Channing.  The  Layman  en- 
tirely fails  in  this  particular.  He  rouses  nobody's  passions  but  his 
own.  Mr,  C.'s  Letter  to  Mr.  Tiiacher  excited  a  more  uncontrollable 
tempest  of  indignation,  rage,  and  a  desire  of  revenge,  than  has  ever 
been  observed  in  this  region  within  the  memory  of  man;  and  this, 
if  not  I'.s  only  etTect,  was  the  prominent  one.  Dr.  W.'s  Letters 
have,  on  the  contrary,  assuaged  the  stormy  passions,  directed  the 
jtiinds  ot  men  to  topics  of  soljcr  inquiry,  and  given  great  consolation 
on  the  bed  of  sickness  and  of  death. 

We  had  intended  to  give  some  specimens  of  Mr.  C.'s  contradic- 
tion of  himself.  For  one  ol  these  we  refer  the  reader  to  the  note,  at 
p.  66  of  Dr.  W.'s  Third  Letter.  We  briefly  mention  another.  Mr. 
«J.  expatiates  very  freely,  after  the  manner  of  all  latiludtiiavians,  sn 


Review  of  the  Unitarian  Coyitroveray.  55 

the  evil  of  being  positive,  dogmatical,  and  censorious;  and  on  the  duty 
of  being  diffident,  modest,  meek,  and  remembering  that  ail  men  have 
their  frailties,  their  prejudices,  and  their  attachment  to  system.  "Let 
lis  be" — says  he  to  Mr  Tdacher — "Let  us  be  wliat  we  profess  to  be, 
patient  inquirers  after  truth,  open  to  conviction,  willing  to  listen  to 
objections,  willing  to -renounce  error,  willing  to  believe  that  nue  as 
nuell  as  others  may  have  been  warped  in  our  opinions,  by  education  and 
situation,  and  that  others  may  have  acquired  important  truths  which 
through  weakness  or  prejudice,  we  may  have  overlooked."  pp.  28,  29. 
'■'■Every  7nan"  says  he  in  his  last  pamphlet,  "is  partial  to  his  own  opin- 
ions, because  they  are  his  own,  and  hix  self-will  and  fir  id  e  are  wounded 
by  contradiction."  p.  32.  We  migbt  quote  many  passages,  which  re- 
commend diffirience  in  forming  and  expressing  opinions.  Indeed,  al- 
most all  Mr.  Channing's  declamation  fails  at  once  to  the  ground,  un- 
less this  proposition  can  be  supported;  viz.  that  no  proiessed  Chris- 
tian has  a  right  to  say,  that  any  other  professed  Chiisiian  embraces 
fundamental  or  important  errors.  As  a  practical  comment  on  the  di{- 
fidence,  which  he  had  been  recommending,  his  last  pamphlet  contains 
this  passage:  "But  Unitarians  [and  of  course  Mr.  C.  with  the  rest  j 
never  stop  here.  They  always  declare  that  Scripture  with  one  voice 
DISOWNS  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and  thai  of  all  the  fictions  of 
THEOLOGIANS,  the  doctrine  of  three  persons  in  the  one  God,  has  per- 
haps the /fc.v?  countenance  from  the  Bible."'  This  is  the  7?2orfc6r  man. 
the  enemy  of  all  positiveness  and  dogmatism! 

When  Dr.  W.  wrote  his  P'irst  Letter,  he  was  careful  that  Mr.  C. 
'should  receive  a  copy,  accom.panied  by  a  note  of  fraternal  courtesy, 
before  the  pamphlet  was  published  for  sale.  This  attention  was  not 
reciprocated  by  Mr.  C.  'in  either  of  these  respects;'  and  when  he 
thought  proper  to  attempt  an  answer  to  the  letter,  he  addressed  his 
Remarks  to  the  public.  The  same  course  of  conduct  was  adhered  to 
by  each  party,  we  understand,  through  the  whole  controversy;  and 
Dr.  W.  continued  to  address  his  letters  very  respecifully  to  Mr.  C. 
while  the  latter  turned  away  from  his  antagonist,  and  addressed  his 
speech  to  the  public.  We  should  not  mention  this,  weie  it  not  a  fair 
example  of  the  politeness,  the  urbanity,  practised  by  the  liberal  party 
toward  their  opponents.  We  have  known  several  instances,  when, 
on  public  occasions,  gentlemen  of  the  liberal  party  have  been  treated 
with  courtesy  and  respect;  not  worshipped,  indeed,  as  though  their 
opinions  were  infallible,  or  their  arguments  incapable  of  refutation;  but 
listened  to  with  seriousness  and  candor,  and  regarded  as  gentlemen  oi 
education,  and  of  high  standing  in  society,  should  be  regarded.  We 
have  not  seen  this  courteous  treatment  generally  reciprocated;  biu 
have  several  times  taken  notice  that  it  was  riiCt  with  a  sour,  morose 
repulsive  aspect  and  demeanor.  Let  those  of  our  readers,  who  bavt 
the  means  of  observation,  bear  in  mind  this  trail  ol  the  liberal  party 
If  we  are  in  an  error,  we  should  be  happy  to  see  it  corrected. 

Mr.  Channing  complains,  that  our  representations  arc  injurious  to 
himself  and  his  brethren;  particularly  by  giving  to  persons  at  a  dis- 
tance a  false  account  of  the  clergy  ol  tue  liberal  party,  of  their  preach- 
ing and  their  doctrines.  We  state,  lor  his  serious  considtration,  the 
following  fact.  There  have  been  many  instances,  in  which  genlienun 
of  education  and  gr-^at  respectabiiity  have  visited  this  region  Irom  a 
distance,  and  have  used  all  the  means  in  their  power  to  learn 
the  nature  of  the  theology  taught  by  the  clergy  of  the  liberal 
party.      Of    these    gentlemen    a  considerable    number   have  been 


5 1  Rcviexo  of  the  Unitarian  Controversy, 

men  of  piety,  well  acquainted  with  the  Scriptures;  and  not  a  few 
have  been  clergymen.  They  had  heard  much  ot  Boston  divinity,  and 
had  seen  our  representations.  They  of  course  heard  all  the  preachintj 
they  could,  and  attended  to  it  with  great  interest.  Not  one  of  these 
gentlenjen,  so  far  as  our  knowledge  extends,  ever  expressed  an  opin- 
ion that  the  clergy  of  the  liberal  party  had  been  injured.  Many,  to 
our  certain  knowledge,  have  declared,  that  the  preaching  generally 
heard  from  gentlemen  of  that  party  was  more  deatifute  of  the  Gospet, 
and  often  njore  contranj  to  the  GosfieL-,  than  they  had  ever  before  im- 
agined. 

?vlr.  Channing  has  applied  to  our  Review  many  approbrious  epi- 
thets, of  which  we  are  not  disposed  to  take  the  least  notice.  That  ar- 
ticle has  received  the  approbation  of  men,  in  whose  presence  Mr.  C 
would  not  assume  any  tone  of  superiority; — -of  men  whose  consciences 
are  not  less  tender,  whose  motives  are  not  less  pure,  and  whose  deci- 
isions  are  not  less  weighty,  than  those  of  Mr.  C.  and  his  brethren.  We 
do  not  mean  to  inipiy,  tliat  tlie  approbation  of  men,  however  great  and 
good,  is  a  safe  rule  of  conduct.  But,  in  the  present  case,  our  own  de- 
liberate opinion  of  what  was  right  is  confirmed  by  the  judgment  of 
persons  of  high  standir.g  in  the  churches,  on  both  sides  of  the  Athin- 
tic.  This  we  think  sufficient  to  counterbalance  the  ''denunciations,'* 
wiaich  weie  so  autlioiitatively  uttered  by  Mr.  Channing. 

It  is  remarkable,  that  in  the  Christian  Instructor  published  at  Edin- 
burgh in  June  last,  (the  same  month  in  which  our  Review  appeared,) 
there  was  a  Review  oi' certain  Unitarian  pamphlets,  which  had  recent- 
ly been  published  in  Scotland.  The  occasion  is  seized  by  the  Reviewr 
cr  to  expose  the  ridiculous  and  insufferable  manner,  in  vvhich  Unita- 
rians praise  each  other;  and  the  whole  article  evinces  most  cJeatly 
that  the  sect  is  i)reciseiy  the  same  on  each  side  of  the  water. 

It  was  maiiile'st  in  our  Review,  t*hat  Unitarianism  of  the  Priestlcian 
sort,  is  in  the  near  neigliborhood  of  infidelity.  This  is  abundantly 
proved,  in  the  ai  tide  to  which  we  have  just  referred.  "The  sincere 
and  coiiscieiuious  Deist,"  says  INIr.  Cogan,  as  quoted  by  the  Christian 
Instructor,  ''cannot  be  far  from  the  kingdoni  of  heaven."  "The  ob- 
jections of  a  rational  and  virtuous  Deist,"  says  the  same  writer,  "can- 
not be  against  the  pure  primitive  principles  of  our  religion;  they  can 
only  be  opposed  to  doctrines  of  fallible  men,  some  of  which  must  be 
spurious,  and  others  of  an  inferior  importance.  They  are  all  of  u  mere 
speculative  nature." 

In  short,  this  Unitarian  wrilcr  goes  on,  in  sucli  a  manner  as  would  Ifi-id  to  the  conclu- 
sion, that  every  "rational  and  victuous  Deist,"  (that  is,  every  Deist  wiio  sai/s  he  is  ration- 
al and  virtuous,)  ought  to  he  received  into  Christian  t'ellowsliip;  a  conclusion  to  which  Dr. 
■\Vorcester  proved  that  Mr.  Channing's  principles  uould  lead  him.  "Did  the  general 
creed  of  Christians,"  says  Mr.  Smith,  the  Unitarian  coadjutor  of  Mr.  Yates,  "comprise 
only  ihc  Kin)i)le  and  sublime  docti'ine  of  Uuitarianisni,  ami  were  the  lives  of  its  ]>rofessors 
in  any  degree  consistent  « ivli  their  avowed  belief,  I  am  persuaded  that  there  would  scarce- 
ly he  an  inridel  to  be  found:  for  in  this  system  there  is  nothing  which  the  understanding 
Can  reject  as  uni:.easouable,  or  the  heart  oppose  as  malevolent;  the  enlijjhtened  must  per- 
ceive it  to  be  just,  and  the  good  must  wish  it  to  be  true."  What  a  direct  opposition  is 
this  to  the  whole  tenor  of  our  Savior's  preaching.  What  a  contradiction  to  the  uniform 
testimony  of  Scripture  on  the  subject  of  urdjelief  And  yet  Mr.  Smith  can  talk  of  his  rev- 
erence  4or  the  Scriptur-es,  with  as  much  tkieacy  as  Mr.  Channing.  He  is  not  afraid,  how- 
ever,  to  speak  of  "the  common  doctrine  of  future  punishnient  as  a  doctrine  which,  he  is 
liappy  to  dcclire.  Unitarians  have  sense  enough  to  distrust,  and  goodness  enough  to  de- 
test." In  this  irreverent,  presumptiu)us,  profane  manner,  <lo  leading  Unitarians  permit 
themselves  to  speak  of  the  most  soienm  and  awful  truths  of  revelation;  and  with  such 
men  as  these  does  Mr.  C.  insist,  tli.ii  the  orthodox  should  hold  Christian  communion. 

Our  readers  will  remember,  that  Mr.  Wells  wrote  a  short  letter  to  the  Editor  of  the 
Panoplist,  which  was  published  in  our  number  for  -hdy,  and  which  we  have  already  once 
mentioned  in  i!vs  article      Though  >ve  by  no  uieuris  agree  witli  Mr.  Wells,  in  the  inter- 


Revienv  of  the  UnitaYian  Controversy.  55 

pretationof  his  letter  to  Mr.  Bclsham,  we  do  cordially  agree  with  hira  in  referring  that 
letter,  with  his  observations  iqion  it,  to  our  readcs.  It  was  with  pleasure  that  wcmseil- 
ed  his  short  explanatory  letter;  particularly  as  he  did  not,  like  Mr.  Channiiig  and  the  Lay- 
man, fall  into  a  passion,  nor  utter  sucli  re'proache.s,  as  would  have  Seen  ill  suited  to  his 
character  as  a  scholar  and  a  gentleman.  We  can  even  apolo::izL- for  the  obnoxious  part 
of  his  letter  to  Mr.  IJelsham;  that  in  which  he  made  so  tree  with  the  characters  of  the 
orthodo.t.  The  letter  was  wi-itien  in  harte,  without  any  expectation  that  it  would  be  pub- 
lished; and  v/e  presume  the  expressions  which  it  conlalied  were  not  weiglu-d  with  mucb 
accuracy.  In  this  way  it  may  have  come  to  pass,  tliat  several  paragraphs,  probably  with- 
out much  consideration,  were  filled  w  itii  the  cant  of  tiie  party. 

We  intended  to  cjuote  the  first  pnragrapli  01"  the  La\  man's  pamiihlet,  and  to  exhibit,  in 
as  brief  a  manner  as  possible,  tiie  folly  ."extravagance,  and  pi'rvei-se  igaorance,  or  total  dis- 
regard of  truth,  which  ai-e  manifest  in  that  paragraph  alo.ie.  Our  rLadcrs  would  then  be 
able  to  judge  what  soji  of  a  writer  the  L.ayman  is,  and  to  \>hat  credit  his  representations 
are  entitled.  But  wc  have  not  tnc  rc"m  necessary  for  this  puri>03e.  Dr.  Worcester  ap- 
propriated twopai^es,  in  a  postscript,  totlie  consideration  of  ihe  Lavman's  rhapsody  of  72 
pages;  which  was  quite  as  much  as  it  deserved.  Let  not  our  re:ulei-s  suppose,  that  we  con- 
sitier  the  liberal  party  as  responsible  foi-  tliis  pamphlet.  We  have  never  heard,  tint  it 
was  approved  by  a  single  individual  of  that  party,  except  the  writer;  and,  unless  wehavd 
been  misinformed,  it  has  been  regarded  by  the  i)arly  in  general  with  entire  disgust  and 
contempt.  VV  e  do  not  see  how  any  man  could  more  effectually  destroy  his  own  reputation 
as  a  writer,  than  the  Layman  has  done  by  the  pam])hlet,  in  question.  Still  we  are  not  to 
forget,  that  this  miserable  compound  of  rant  and  malevolence  is  the  production  of  a  man, 
who  has  been  di Uinguished  in  the  liberal  pai  ty  by  his  talents  and  his  zeal,  and  w  ho  is  now- 
Considered  as  tl»e  most  active  member  of  the  Corporation  of  Harvard  College.  The  Lay- 
man will  probably  suppose,  that  we  wish  10  prevent  bis  pampjilct  from  being  read.  This 
is  not  the  case.  It  is  true  that  we  cannot  conscientiously  advi.se  any  otie  to  buy  such  an  ef- 
fusion, unless  for  the  mere  purpose  of  seeing  how  wretchedly  a  man  of  talents,  and  <>f 
learning  on  some  subjects,  can  write  in  a  b.ad  cause.  For  the  futui-e,  we  think  there  is  lit- 
tle hazard  in  asserting,  that  tiie  writings  of  the  Layman,  whether  he  attacks  the  character 
of  individuals  or  of  l.irge  bodies  of  men,  will  receive  as  little  attention,  and  exei  t  as  little 
influence,  as  his  adversaries  could  desire. 

Both  Mr.  Channing  and  the  Layman  have  introduced  the  President  of  Harvard  College, 
and  attempted  to  vindicate  him  iVom  the  observations  made  concernin<j;  him  in  onr  Ue- 
view.  We  had  mentioned  "a  letter  of  consolatitm  and  eijconragement,  written  by  Dr. 
Kirkland  to  the  New  Utiitarian  (.'hnrch  in  Philadelphia;"  Mliich,  as  we  st.ited,  ihev  ha<! 
"been  complaisant  enough  to  publish  by  shewing  it  to  several  of  their  orthfHlox  friends." 
This  statement  we  made  on  v  h.ii  we  deemed  good  authority;  and  we  believe  anj*  candid 
man  would  have  so  deemed  it.  Rut  we  now  lind,  that  the  letter  in  qin-stion  wasnot;uJ- 
dressed  formally  to  the  Unitarian  Church;  but  to  "a  zealous  member"  of  the  Sociniaa 
Society  in  Philadelphia;  and  that  it  may  not  have  been  published  to  the  orthodox,  any 
otherwise  than  by  relaung-  its  conU'nts.  We  have  made  ililigcnt  inquiry  on  the  subject; 
and,  after  considering  the  extract  in  the  note  to  the  Layman's  pampldet,  have  no  reasoa 
to  doubt,  that  the  letti^r  of  Dr.  K.  was  subst:inti:illv,  ih'>ugli  not  fi)rinally,  what  we  repre- 
sented it;  and  that  it  was  intended  by  the  w  riter  to  promote  the  cause  of  Socinianism  in 
Philadelpliia. 

"The  story  ^vhich  the  Reviewer  tell.s,"  says  Mr.  Channing,  "of  a  number  of  men  ns- 
sembling  on  the  evening  of  Cominencenient,  and  putting  tog'-ther  their  observations  on 
the  President's  prayer,  sounds  badly."  We  quote  this  passag'-  for  the  sake  of  showing 
Mr.  Channing  himself,  how  easy  it  is  to  misrepresent;  and  to  give  an  (mIIous  appi  arance. 
to  the  most  natural  ^nd  innocent  act:ons.  Wc  told  no  "story"  of  "a  number  of  men  as- 
sembling." We  s.iid,  "seveial  gentlemen  of  echu-ation  and  respectability,  from  different 
parts  of  the  .\mcrican  union,  came  to  the  rnaniinous  co:iclusion,  8ic."  The  f«ct  was 
that  some  of  these  gentlemen  were  in  one  place,  ami  some  were  in  another;  but  they  .all 
came  to  the  same  "unanimous  conclusion."  N'or  did  those,  who  were  in  one  place,  "<;*• 
semhle,"  for  the  sake  of  "putting  t(.>gether  their  observations  on  the  President's  prayer," 
as  Mr.  Channing's  language  would  intimate.  The  prayers  of  the  President  did,  indeed, 
excite  the  astonishment  of  these  gentlemen;  and  tlii'^  astonishment  ihey  expressed  to  eacU 
other,  as  we  suppose  tliey  had  a  right  to  do.  Those  of  th'vi,,  w  ho  were  from  distant 
j)arts  of  the  country,  liad  not  before  imagined,  that  such  prayers  were  ir-ver  offered  in  a 
Christian  lan<l;  especially  by  a  clergyman,  who  was  at  the  head  of  »  great  literary  institu- 
tion. Mr  Channing,  having  added  from  his  own  invention  the  circumstance  of  "assjjn- 
bti7ig;"  proceeds  to  make  a  very  odious  comparison,  which  imj.lles  the  existence  of  sev- 
eral other  odious  circumstances;  thongii  for  these  insinuations  tiiere  was  not  the  sligiitest 
pretence.  He  concludes,  by  representing  these  gentlemen  as  "spies,"  because  they  had 
been  so  wicked  as  to  observe  and  converse  about  the  President's  prayer;  "spies,"  for 
listening  to  the  prayers  of  Dr  Kirkland,  on  commencement  day,  in  the  midst  of  twu 
thousand  people!  We  did  not  publish  our  account  of  these  prayers  without  delib-mtio.T. 
"We  should  despise  any  thing  like  a  verbal  criticism  ou  i>ublic  devotional  services,  We 
should  equally  despise  the  j,ublica:ion  of  strictures  on  the  more  private  conduct  of  any 
gentleman,  holding  an  important  pulMic  office;  because  such  conduct  might  receive  a  color, 
or  appearance,  from  carelessness,  inadvertence,  occasional  levity,  or  a  thousand  other  cau- 
ses.   But  we  do  not  conceive  oursr'ves  to  have  infringed  the  rules  of  the  most  scrupulous 


56  i.  Review  of  the  Unitarian  Controu crsy . 

decorum,  in  having  adverted  to  the  general  and  peculiar  charactfr  of  public  services; 
■which  character  nmst  have  been  the  result  of  a  religious  sj-stcni,  and  could  not  be  imput- 
ed to  iuadvcrtciici ,  carelessness,  or  any  temjiorarj  cause.  M'e  tliought  it  a  very  solemn 
tact,  that  the  f;(M)eral  character  of  devotional  exercises,  on  commencement  day,  in  Har- 
vard College,  this  tavoi-ite  instituliou  of  our  venerable  forefathers,  should  be  sunk  down 
to  the  level  oi'  sober  Deism.     Others  have  thought  it  a  solemn  fact. 

•'There  is  anoiher  charge  against  the  Piesident  of  Harvard  University,'"  9«ys  iNlr. 
Channing,  "«  hich  no  one  cert.iiiily  will  expect  mc  to  notice;  it  is  the  charge  of  having 
■written  an  article  in  the  Anthologj  above  four  years  ago.  1  am  not  in  the  habit  of  asking 
gentlemen,  uheihwr  tliey  are  the  authois  of  pieces  which  appear  x\ilhout  a  name;  nor 
do  1  conceive  that  the  President  of  llarvaid  University  is  bound  to  answer  to  the  pubUc, 
vh'-never  an  anonymous  publicalioi\  shall  he  laid  to  his  charge  " 

'1  his  paragrapii  was  uritlen  because  Mr.  Clianning  felthimself  obliged  to  say  someZ/iin^, 
Did  Mr.  Cha.ning  wish  his  reaiiers  to  believe,  that  tlie  President  of  Harvard  College  did 
not  write  <he  article  in  question  ?  If  he  did  wish  his  i^eaders  to  believe  so,  we  solemi»ly 
pui  the  question  to  his  conscience;  Uid  he  himself  believe,  what  he  wished  to  make  oth- 
ers believe  ?  If  he  did  not  wish  his  readers  to  believe  so,  why  did  he  write  the  paragraph? 
Can  any  well  inloruied  man,  x\  iio  lives  wiihin  fifty  miles  of  Boston,  doubt  whether  Mr. 
Channing  was  ignoraiu,  who  the  writer  of  the  article  was  ? 

Again;  does  .Mr.  C.  wish  to  be  understood,  that  the  circumstance  of  the  article  hav- 
ing been  written  *\foitr  i/eurs  ago"  diminislies  the  criminality  of  having  written 
it  .'■  Is  there  a  statute  of  limitalions,  which  can  be  pleaded  at  the  bar  of  the  Christian 
public,  of  conscience,  and  of  God,  in  justification  of  aii_\  offence  against  religion,  which 
may  have  been  committed  "above  four  years  ago?"  If  there  is,  it  will  be  a  happy  dis- 
covery for  the  wliole  race  of  scolfers;  and  there  are  many  other  articles  in4.he  Anthology, 
the  authors  of  which  will  gladly  lake  advantage  of  the  statute. 

V\  by  did  not  Mr.  Channing  let  the  public  know,  whether  he  approved  or  condemned 
the  passage,  which  «e  quoted  from  the  article  in  the  Anthology'  1'"  the  passage  v.as  in- 
nocent, it  must  have  been  a  .small  ot'teiice  in  us  to  ha\e  imputed  it  to  any  one;  if  the  writ- 
ing of  the  passage  was  a  heii\ous  offence,  Mr.  C.  ought  to  have  acknowledged  it  to  be  so, 
or  not  ■lO  have  mentioned  l!ie  subject  at  all. 

'I'he  tact  IS,  v\hatever  ^Jr.  Channing  may  savor  think  on  the  subject,  that  the  article, 
vhicli  we  qiujtcd  from  the  Anthology,  made  a  very  deep  impression  upon  the  Christian 
public,  it  cannot  be  winked  out  of  sight.  It  cannot  be  excused  or  palliated.  It  is  con- 
sidered as  one  of  the  most  pernicious,  and  one  of  tlie  most  culpable  examples  ot  scoffing 
^t  religion,  which  can  any  where  be  found;  as  holding  up  to  ridicule  all  religious  anxiety, 
kll  concern  toi^  the  sahation  of  the  soul;  as  deriding  the  holy  joy  of  the  penitent  sinner, 
who  casts  himself  upon  the  mercy  of  his  Savior,  and  glories  in  tlie  doctrines  of  the  cross. 
Thus  it  is  understood  :  and  there  are  several  other  passages  in  the  same  article,  whicli 
sustain  the  same  unhappy  character. 

A  gentleman  of  the  liberal  parly  informeil  a  fiiend  of  ours,  that  he  was  present  •when 
tlie  article  was  read  in  manuscript  foi-  the  approbation  of  the  conductors  of  the  Authob;- 
gv,  at  one  of  their  weekly  meetings.  'I'he  writer  was  frequently  interrupted,  while  read- 
ing llie  ai  tide,  by  peals  of  ungovernable  laughter;  so  that  it  w  as  not  wiihout  (hfficuUy 
th  t  he  was  able  to  proceed.  Mr.  Channing  appears  to  have  a  great  sensibility  to  "sneer," 
"iu.sult,"  and  "sarcasm,"  in  any  case  where  he  imagines  these  weapons  to  be  directed  a- 
gainst  himself  or  his  brethren.  N\  hat  does  he  think  of  .several  clergymen  and  laymen 
"absembling"  by  appointment;  and  one  of  ihe  clergymen  takitig  out  of  his  pocket  a  string 
of  bue'.'is  and  sarcasms,  written  in  the  coolness  and  stillness  of  academic  bowers;— of  sneer  ■■ 
and  sarcasms,  directed,  not  against  the  weaknesses  or  even  the  virtues  of  his  fellow -men, 
hul  A'^Mwst  thons  ffreat  truth.s  "f  reliqiofiy  which  have  been  ^the  consolation  of  the  pioii> 
in  every  age.'  ^^'llllt  does  he  think  of  such  a  siiii;g  of  sneers  and  sarcasms  being  read  u- 
miilst  a  i^oar  of  laughter,  and  loud  cheering,  fiom  every  part  of  such  a  learned,  liberal, 
clerical  auditory  r  Is  not  this  "sitting  in  the  seat  of  the  scornful;" 

^^"e  designed  to  make  a  few  observations  on  the  effects  of  the  present  controver.^y;  but 
•we  must  crowd  vhat  we  have  to  say  on  ttiis  subject  into  a  single  paragraph.  We  observe, 
then,  thht  in  the  early  part  of  the  controversy  there  w  as  a  most  uncommon  exhibiiion  of 
anger  and  indignation,  throughout  the  whole  exicnt  of  the  liberal  party.  'Ihese  wr.'sth- 
ful  passions  have  been  succteded,  in  many  instances,  by  deep  and  pathetic  lauientations 
over  the  evils  of  coiuroversy,  ai  d  of  sejiaralion.  Vv  e  have  not  heard  w  bother  any  of  the 
party  suppose  Mr.  Channing  to  have  the  belter  of  the  argument.  Possibly  sonic  of  them 
do;  we  bchevfe- mo.st  of  them  do  not.  On  the  other  sitle,  the  temper  and  the  feelings 
have  been  very  differerit.  We  have  neither  seen  nor  kmiwn  any  ortliodox  person  angry, 
throughout  tbe  whole  discussion.  We  have  heard  no  fears,  no  anxiety,  ex[>re?se<t  among 
our  friends,  as  to  the  resiill.  They  have  been  satisfiul,  that  the  cause  of  truth  would  be 
the  gainer.  'Ihey  b:ive  been  persundrd,  that,  in  the  language  of  Dr.  ^\  orcester,  it  is 
not  A  "violation  of  the  great  law  of  love,  for  the  friends  of  truth  to  decline  communioi, 
■vt'iih  its  rejecter.s."  Though  we  lament  the  unchristian  feelings,  the  violent  animositie.^, 
of  which  the  controversy  has  been  the  occasion;  we  rejoice  that  the  minds  of  men  in  this 
region,  are  awakened  to  consideration,  and  that  the  disclosures  which  have  been  made 
are  so  many  and  so  importani,  as  that  the  coiicealmeiiL  of  a  minister's  religious  Jysituk 
TH  ill  hereafter  be  difficult,  if  not  iraprutticable. 


\ 


I 


w 


